THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF 

NORTH  CAROLINA 


THE  COLLECTION  OF 
NORTH  CAROLINIANA 


C286 
B62o 


UNIVERSITY  OF  N.C.  AT  CHAPEL  HILL 


0000410280 


This  book  may  be  kept  out  one  month  unless  a  recall 
notice  is  sent  to  you.  It  must  be  brought  to  the  North 
Carolina  Collection  (in  Wilson  Library)  for  renewal. 


Form  No.  A-369 


^M^^M'I"  "i1  'i'  'I  wu^MJumM^m^M^^sj^mm^^ 


THE  ORIGIN 


OF  THE 


BAPTIST 


1 


BY 

C.  J.  BLACK 


.3 


M 

1 

11 

m 
W 


M\ 
M 


m 


.    -  ■    ■ 


C.  J.  BLACK 


The  Origin  of  the  Baptist 

by 
C.  J.  BLACK 

Author  of  A  History  of  the  Brown  Creek-Union 
Baptist  Association,  A  History  of  Loray  Bap- 
tist Church,     A  Short  History  of  Sandy 
Plains  Baptist  Church. 


Now  Pastor  of  Loray  Baptist  Church 
Gastonia,  N.  C. 


Price  50  cents 


"Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  Matt. 
16:18. 


INDEX 

Page 

The  Deep  Down  Things 4 

Introduction 5 

The  Baptist  Tree 8 

The  Origin  of  The  Baptist 9 

The  Origin  of  American  Baptist ' 20 

Who  Are  the  Original  Baptist 24 

The  Origin  of  the  Primitive  Baptist 34 

What  the  Baptist  Have  Been  Called  Through 

All  the  Ages 55 

Christian  Baptism 65 

Should  Baptist  Exist  as  an  Independent  De- 
nomination, or  should  They  Unite  with 
Pedobaptist  Denominations 83 


DEDICATION 

To  my  family  that  the  Lord  has  made  possible 
for  me  to  have  and  especially  my  wife,  who  has 
borne  my  children  and  stood  by  me  these  thirty 
years  that  I  have  spent  in  the  Ministry,  these 
pages  are  affectionately  dedicated. 


THE  DEEP  DOWN  THINGS 


The  Deep-Down  Things  are  strong  and  great 
Firm,  fixed,  unchangeable  as  fate, 
Inevitable,  inviolate, 

The  Deep-Down  Things. 

The  truth  endures.  Men  pass  from  youth, 
Books,  creeds,  and  systems  suffer  ruth; 
Change  has  no  dart  can  slay  the  truth — 
The  truth  endures. 

The  Deep-Down  Things!  All  winds  that  blow, 
All  seething  tides  that  roam  and  flow, 
May  smite  but  cannot  overthrow 
The  Deep-Down  Things. 

The  surge  of  years  engulfs  the  land 
And  crumbles  mountains  into  sand, 
But  yet  the  Deep-Down  Things  withstand 
The  surge  of  years. 

Behind  the  years  that  waste  and  smite 
And  topple  empires  into  night, 
God  dwells  unchanged  in  changeless  light 
Behind  the  years. 

The  Deep-Down  Things!  Of  little  faith 
Is  he  who  fears  they  suffer  scathe — 
Impervious  to  the  darts  of  death — 
The  Deep-Down  Things. 


INTRODUCTION 

Some  may  wonder  why  I  have  written  this 
little  book,  and  they  may  think  that  I  have  gone 
into  a  forbidden  path,  but  I  assure  them  that  I 
have  not.  There  is  a  great  demand  for  a  book  of 
this  kind,  and  I  had  just  as  well  write  it  as  any 
body.  I  feel  that  if  I  do  not  write  it  that  it  will  not 
be  written.  If  every  historian  would  tell  the 
truth,  there  would  not  be  any  need  for  this  little 
book,  but  they  will  not  tell  the  truth  when  it 
comes  to  the  claims  of  Baptists.  They  say  that 
Baptists  are  of  recent  origin,  and  that  they  origi- 
nated in  America.  To  show  that  Baptists  are  as 
old  as  the  New  Testament,  and  even  older,  is  the 
one  aim  of  this  little  book.  Baptist  originated 
with  Christianity  and  have  been  here  all  the  years 
it  has  been  believed  in,  and  without  the  Baptist 
idea  of  Christianity,  there  would  not  be  any  New 
Testament  Christianity.  Christianity  and  Bap- 
tist are  synonomous  terms. 

We  are  not  going  into  an  extensive  argument 
to  set  forth  our  claims,  but  we  have  been  ex- 
tensive enough  to  show  that  we  have  just  grounds 
for  our  claims.  It  is  not  a  fancy  of  ours  to  be- 
lieve that  we  are  the  only  New  Testament  church, 
but  the  truth  of  it  is  we  are,  and  since  we 
are,  we  feel  that  we  ought  to  contend  for  our 
rights.  We  are  commanded  to  earnestly  contend 
for  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints, 
and  that  is  what  we  have  tried  to  do  in  this  little 
book.  Read  it  carefully,  and  then  think  a  little 
about  our  claims.    Investigate  all  the  other  claims 


that  you  may  be  able  to  get  hold  of.  When  you 
have  done  this,  decide  who  is  right  about  the 
church  question.  Baptist  are  the  only  folks  who 
make  the  assertion  that  they  have  been  here  as 
long  as  Christianity,  except  the  Roman  Catholics, 
and  any  one  who  knows  church  history  at  all, 
knows  that  their  claim  is  not  true.  Others  may 
intimate  that  they  are  the  oldest,  but  you  will 
not  find  any  reputable  historian  who  tries  to  set 
forth  the  claim  that  protestantism  goes  beyond 
the  German  Reformation. 

Now,  if  our  claim  be  true,  how  loyal  ought 
we  to  be  to  the  Baptist  Cause  ? 

Had  any  man  a  right  to  organize  a  denomi- 
nation and  say  that  it  is  a  Christian  church  ?  Had 
any  man  a  right  to  organize  a  society  and  say 
that  it  has  a  right  to  administer  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  any  way  that  it 
pleases?  We  believe  that  such  is  a  dangerous 
business  and  that  the  people  ought  to  become  well 
informed  to  know  that  such  cannot  be  conducive 
to  the  best  interest  of  Christianity.  We  cannot 
be  true  to  the  Bible  and  practice  just  any  thing 
for  baptism,  and  have  just  any  purpose  we  may 
wish  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  New  Testament  places  certain  limitation  on 
both  of  the  ordinances,  and  to  go  beyond  these  is 
preposterous  to  the  highest  degree.  Baptist  have 
not  done  what  they  ought  to  have  done,  but  they 
have  done  some  things  that  other  people  have  not 
undertaken.  They  have  fought  for  the  ordi- 
nances, and  have  well  nigh  won  out.  They  have 
earnestly  contended  for  believer's  baptism,  and 

6 


they  have  well  nigh  won  out  on  that  point.  What 
we  need  most  now  is  to  stress  Godly  living.  If 
all  of  our  Baptist  folks  would  live  as  they  should, 
we  would  not  need  to  argue  the  question  of  church 
perpetuity,  nor  would  we  have  to  argue  divine 
origin.  The  world  would  know  us  by  our  fruits. 

One  more  word:  Did  the  blessed  Master  fail 
on  his  job?  Did  He  have  to  raise  up  men  like 
Calvin,  Luther,  Knox,  and  Wesley  to  get  him  out 
of  a  hole?  By  no  means  did  he  fail.  The  gates 
of  hell  have  not  prevailed  against  his  church, 
and  they  will  never  do  it.  His  church  is  still  here, 
and  will  remain  here  until  he  comes  again  to  claim 
His  own.  It  is  the  embodiment  of  his  doctrine, 
and  it  is  his  real  mystic  body  setting  forth  the 
glorious  characteristics  of  his  kingdom.  Read 
this  little  book  carefully  and  prayerfully,  remem- 
bering that  it  has  been  written  without  any 
malice  toward  anyone,  but  with  a  real  desire  for 
the  truth,  and  nothing  else.  If  the  claim  of  this 
book  be  true,  let  us  be  better  Baptists  than  we 
have  been  and  let  us  win  this  world  to  our  side 
by  lives  of  consecration  and  service  to  His  glor- 
ious cause. 

Fraternally, 


Gastonia,  N.  C.,  June,  1924. 


millennium. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BAPTIST 

This  is  an  age  of  most  careful  research 
along  scientific  lines.  It  goes  even  further  than 
this.  The  day  has  come  when  we  want  to  know 
the  origin  of  almost  everything.  We  are  trying 
to  learn  all  we  can  about  the  origin  of  the  nations 
of  the  earth  from  the  Mound  Builders  of  the  west 
to  the  most  terrible  cannibals  of  the  isles  of  the 
sea.  We  just  want  to  know.  We  are  boring  down 
into  mother  earth  to  see  what  she  contains; 
We  are  exploring  the  heavens  above  with  our 
mighty  telescopes;  we  are  going  into  the  blue 
deep  to  see  what  is  there.  Oh  well,  it  is  an  age 
of  investigation  along  almost  every  line  except 
religion.  If  it  is  so  important  along  historical 
and  scientific  lines,  why  not  along  denominational 
lines?  We  think  that  it  is.  Really,  we  believe 
that  it  is  more  important  to  investigate  our  creeds 
than  anything  else.  Possibly,  eternal  life  may 
hinge  upon  this  investigation.  So  many  are  de- 
luded by  some  sceptical  creed — one  that  is  mis- 
leading so  that  the  main  doctrines  are  overlooked. 
We  ought  to  know  where  these  denominations 
came  from  just  as  much  as  we  do  the  Bible.  We 
cannot  know  the  real  church  of  Christ  unless  we 
investigate.  We  ought  to  know  it,  because  the 
others  are  imposters.  You  may  think  that  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  the  real  church  even 
thought  we  do  investigate,  but,  do  you  not  believe 


that  the  Master  has  so  arranged  things  that  his 
church  may  be  known  ?  Do  you  not  think  that  He 
gave  it  some  birth  marks  that  we  may  be  able  to 
trace  it  by?  We  think  that  He  did,  and  that  it 
may  be  known  forever  by  these,  however  corrupt 
the  world  may  become,  or  however  many  denomi- 
nations may  arise.  False  deeds  may  be  tested, 
and  the  real  owner  can  be  determined,  however 
long  the  line,  or  however  old  the  right.  It  is  true 
that  the  church  was  in  hiding  for  twelve  hundred 
and  sixty  years  according  to  the  prophecies,  but 
let  us  reason  just  a  little.  Suppose  you  have  a 
cow  to  stray  from  your  barn,  you  follow  her  to  a 
woodland.  You  know  it  is  your  cow  because  it 
is  the  same  old  spotted  one  with  a  broken  horn 
and  a  knocked  down  hip  that  you  have  seen  daily 
since  you  owned  her.  Her  marks  are  such  that 
there  can  be  no  doubt  about  her  identity.  You 
positively  know  it  is  your  cow  that  went  into  the 
woods.  You  could  describe  her  to  any  newspaper 
man,  you  can  picture  her  without  any  trouble. 
Now,  suppose  you  follow  her  through  a  forest 
1,260  miles  long.  You  lose  sight  of  the  cow,  but 
you  keep  on  the  track  of  her.  You  keep  seeing 
signs  of  her  all  along  the  way,  and  finally  you 
come  upon  the  same  old  cow.  She  is  still  spotted, 
she  still  has  a  broken  horn,  she  still  has  the 
knocked  down  hip.  Would  you  swear  to  her  iden- 
tity ?  Most  surely  you  would.  Now,  if  we  can  find 
a  people  during  the  first  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  that  we  are  certain  we  know.  They  hold 
to  certain  principles,  they  practice  certain  things, 
and  have  certain  characteristics  that  we  just  can- 


10 


not  be  mistaken  about,  and  then,  if  we  come  down 
to  the  fifteenth  century  and  find  the  same  people, 
holding  to  the  same  views,  practicing  the  same 
things,  and  having  the  same  characteristics,  is 
it  not  conclusive  evidence  that  they  have  been 
here  all  the  time,  and  that  they  originated  during 
the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era?  Surely 
you  will  admit  this.  We  can  prove  that  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  first  centuries  held  to  the  very  same 
things  we  hold  today.  They  believe  in  a  convert- 
ed membership,  they  immersed  for  baptism,  they 
did  not  immerse  any  but  believers,  they  called 
each  other  brother  or  sister  as  the  case  might  de- 
mand. They  were  democratic  in  the  government 
of  their  churches,  they  were  laughed  at  for  their 
strict  adherence  to  their  views,  and  many  more 
things  we  might  say,  but  is  this  not  sufficient  to 
set  up  the  claim  we  are  trying  to  establish  here? 
Our  claim  is  this:  the  Baptist  had  their  origin 
with  John  and  Jesus  and  have  existed  in  some 
way  or  other  since  their  day.  They  may  not  have 
been  called  Baptist  all  the  time,  but  they  have  ex- 
isted under  some  name  or  other  all  through  the 
dark  ages.  We  want  it  understood  that  we  are 
not  so  careful  about  the  name  as  we  are  the  doc- 
trine. 

In  trying  to  set  up  the  claim  that  Christ  was 
the  founder  of  Baptist  churches  and  that  all  other 
denominations  are  works  of  men,  we  must  notice 
the  church  as  it  is  pictured  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

1.  The  church  the  New  Testament  describes 
was  an  independent  organization.    The  very  word 


11 


church  in  the  original  language  conveys  the  idea 
of  an  independent  body.  Local,  self  governing,  an 
organism.  We  never  read  of  "the  church  of  Asia 
Minor,"  or  "the  church  of  Syria,"  or  "the  church 
of  Palestine."  We  see  mention  made  again  and 
again  of  "the  churches  of  Asia,"  "the  churches  of 
Macedonia,"  and  "the  churches  of  Christ  Jesus." 
We  want  to  say  further  that  this  did  not  refer  to 
denominations  either.  The  New  Testament  sets 
forth  the  idea  that  the  church  is  a  local,  inde- 
pendent body  of  baptized  believers. 

2.  The  New  Testament  church  immersed,  and 
practiced  nothing  but  immersion.  This  is  seen 
by  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  baptizo.  It  occurs 
many  times,  and  is  always  used  when  baptism 
is  mentioned.  The  word  sprinkle  is  never  used  in 
connection  with  baptism.  The  word  pour  is  never 
used  either.  To  sprinkle  is  one  word  and  to  bap- 
tize is  another.  This  word  is  the  one  that  all 
Greek  scholars  declare  means  to  immerse.  We  do 
not  need  to  argue  this.  It  has  been  admitted, 
but  we  give  it  a  passing  notice  because  so  many 
do  not  know  what  the  scholars  of  today  say  about 
many  things. 

The  second  argument  we  wish  to  notice  to 
prove  that  the  New  Testament  church  immersed 
is  the  fact  that  all  of  the  early  historians  tell  us 
that  the  practice  of  immersion  was  continued  for 
thirteen  hundred  years.  Let  us  notice  a  few  of 
them.  The  first  is  Dr.  Mosheim.  He  was  a 
Lutheran,  "In  this  century  baptism  was  admin- 
istered in  convenient  places,  without  the  assem- 
blies; and  by  immersing  the  candidates  wholly 


12 


in  water."  (Eecle.  His.  Vol  1,  p.  42).  Have  you 
not  seen  this  very  thing  done  many  a  time?  I 
have  administered  without  the  assembly  many 
a  time.  The  second  man  we  wish  to  mention  is 
Bishop  Smith  of  Kentucky.  In  a  sermon  quoted 
in  the  Biblical  Recorder  of  August  8,  1840,  he 
says:  "We  have  only  to  go  back  six  or  eight  hun- 
dred years,  and  immersion  was  the  only  mode, 
except  in  cases  of  sickness.  It  was  not  only  uni- 
versal, but  primitive  and  apostolical."  This  was 
strange  language  for  a  Methodist  preacher,  but 
he  used  it  just  the  same.  No  Baptist  preacher 
would  make  a  stronger  claim  than  this.  Third. 
Hagenback,  professor  of  theology  in  Basel,  in 
a  work  entitled  "The  Christian  Church  of  the 
First  Three  Centuries,"  in  his  19th  lecture,  says: 
"Baptism  in  the  beginning  was  administered  by 
immersion — Sprinkling  was  in  early  times  admin- 
istered to  the  sick,  on  their  dying  beds."  3.  Cole- 
man, in  a  work  entitled  "Ancient  Christianity 
Exemplified,"  in  referring  to  immersion,  says: 
"In  the  primitive  church,  immediately  subsequent 
to  the  age  of  the  apostles,  this  (immersion) ,  was 
undeniably  the  common  mode  of  baptism,  the  ut- 
most that  can  be  said  of  sprinkling  in  that  early 
period  is,  that  it  was,  in  cases  of  necessity  (sick- 
ness), permitted  as  an  exception  to  a  general 
rule,  pp.395-96." 

It  seems  to  us  that  this  is  enough  to  satisfy 
any  reasonable  mind  that  the  New  Testament 
church  immersed.  We  might  refer  to  many  more, 
but  we  deem  this  sufficient. 

4.  They  did  not  baptize  infants,  but  believers 


13 


only.  Not  a  single  instance  of  infant  baptism  is 
found  in  the  New  Testament.  It  has  been  search- 
ed again  and  again  to  no  avail  for  a  single  in- 
stance of  infant  baptism.  The  greatest  advocates 
do  not  claim  that  it  is  mentioned,  but  they  infer 
that  infants  were  baptized  because  households 
were.  This  is  not  an  argument  at  all.  I  have  bap- 
tized many  a  household,  and  yet  have  never  bap- 
tized an  infant.  Homes  were  without  babies  in 
that  day  as  much  as  they  are  now.  The  New 
Testament  is  just  as  clear  as  it  can  be  on  this 
one  point.  No  one  was  admitted  unless  they  gave 
credible  evidence  of  a  changed  life.  John  would 
not  baptize  unless  they  brought  forth  fruits  meet 
for  repentance,  and  the  preachers  following  him 
made  the  same  demand. 

We  might  bring  up  more  than  this  to  show 
the  main  characteristics  of  the  Baptist,  but  since 
our  space  is  so  limited,  we  will  not  mention  any 
more  just  here.  We  will  now  pass  on  with  the 
argument.  Can  we  not  say  that  Baptist  churches 
of  today  conform  entirely  to  the  New  Testament 
model  ?  Do  they  deviate  in  a  single  instance  ?  Do 
they  not  hold  to  all  these  things  that  the  New 
Testament  requires  ?  They  certainly  do.  We  are 
not  trying  to  set  up  a  claim  to  defend  the  Bap- 
tist, but  we  want  to  show  that  Christ  has  kept 
his  word,  that  his  church  is  still  here,  that  the 
gates  of  hades  have  not  prevailed  against  it" 
by  any  means.  You  may  trace  their  footsteps 
in  the  snows  upon  the  Alps,  you  may  trace  them 
by  their  bloody  foot  prints  in  Piedmont,  you  may 
find  their  ashes  in  Smithfield,  you  may  see  their 


14 


names  covered  in  ignominy  and  shame,  but  the 
Baptists  live,  and  will  live  until  He  comes  again. 

Christ  has  never  been  ashamed  of  his  bride, 
he  has  never  divorced  her,  nor  has  she  so  nearly 
failed  that  he  had  to  get  some  great  reformer 
to  pull  her  out  of  the  rubbish  of  Romanism.  No, 
he  has  been  with  his  church  whether  in  the  open, 
or  in  hiding  all  of  these  years.  Protestantism  did 
need  reformers  to  bring  it  into  existence,  but  Bap- 
tists are  not  protestants.  They  never  came  out 
of  Romanism,  and  nothing  is  protestant  which  did 
not  come  out  of  Rome,  or  one  of  Rome's  descend- 
ants, Calvin,  Luther,  Wesley,  and  Knox  were 
great  leaders,  but  the  Lord  never  empowered 
them  to  organize  his  church.  That  had  been  done 
years  before  they  were  born.  Henry  the  VIII, 
could  murder  his  wives,  and  keep  England  terror 
stricken,  but  he  could  not  organize  the  Church 
of  God.  But  if  these  men  had  not  existed,  where 
would  the  pedobaptist  denominations  have  come 
from?  But  there  is  one  thing  we  are  proud  of 
and  that  is,  since  these  errors  are  here,  they  hold 
to  things  so  antagonistic  to  the  New  Testament 
that  anyone  who  wishes  to  know  the  truth  can 
discern  with  little  difficulty.  They  sprinkle, 
while  the  New  Testament  church  immerses,  they 
argue  that  the  church  saves,  while  the  New  Tes- 
tament holds  that  it  does  not. 

5.  The  next  thing  we  wish  to  show  is  that  all 
of  the  best  ecclesiastical  historians  declare  that 
the  Baptists  have  existed  since  the  days  of  John. 
Let  us  notice  a  few  of  these.  We  cannot  mention 
very  many,  but  enough  of  them  to  show  that  our 


15 


claim  is  well  grounded. 

The  first  testimony  we  wish  to  mention  is  that 
of  Dr.  J.  J.  Dermount,  chaplain  to  the  king  of 
Holland,  and  Dr.  Ypeig,  professor  of  theology  in 
the  University  of  Groningen.  These  are  men 
whose  scholarship  is  admitted.  No  one  dares  to 
deny  what  they  say.  The  Dutch  Baptist  claimed 
that  they  were  the  direct  descendants  of  the 
Waldenses.  The  king  of  Holland  wanted  to  as- 
certain the  truth  in  the  case,  so  he  appointed 
the  above  mentioned  scholars  to  make  an  investi- 
gation of  the  claim,  and  here  is  what  they  report- 
ed: "The  Mennonites  (Baptist)  are  descendants 
from  the  tolerably  pure  evangelical  Waldenses, 
who  were  driven  by  persecution  into  various  coun- 
tries, and  who,  during  the  larger  part  of  the  12th 
century,  fled  into  Flanders,  and  into  the  provinces 
of  Holland  and  Zealand  where  they  lived  simple 
and  exemplary  lives.  They  were,  therefore,  in 
existence  long  before  the  Reformed  Church  of 
the  Netherlands.  We  have  now  seen  that  the 
Baptist,  who  were  formerly  called  Anabaptist, 
and  in  later  times  Menonites,  were  the  original 
Waldenses,  who  have  long  in  the  history  of  the 
church  received  the  honor  of  that  origin.  On 
this  account  the  Baptist  may  be  considered  as  the 
only  Christian  community  which  has  stood  since 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  as  a  Christian  so- 
ciety which  has  preserved  pure  doctrines  of  the 
gospel  through  all  ages.  The  perfectly  correct 
external  and  internal  economy  of  the  Baptist 
denomination  tends  to  confirm  the  truth,  which 
is  disputed  by  the  Romanish  church,  and  the 


16 


Reformation  brought  about  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury was  in  the  highest  degree  necessary,  and 
that  the  same  time  goes  to  refute  the  erroneous 
noitons  of  the  Catholics  that  their  communion  is 
the  most  ancient."  These  men  were  not  Bap- 
tist, and  were  not  seeking  favors  from  the  Bap- 
tist. They  were  appointed  to  ascertain  the  truth  of 
the  matter.  For  one  to  dispute  this  would  be 
to  argue  against  oneself.  What  these  men  say 
is  enough  to  settle  it,  but  we  will  quote  from  Dr. 
Mosheim,  Murdock's  Trans,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  198-200. 
"The  origin  of  the  sect,  who  from  their  repetition 
of  the  baptism  received  in  other  communities,  are 
called  Anabaptist,  but  who  are  also  denominated 
Mennonites,  from  the  celebrated  man  to  whom 
they  owe  a  large  share  of  their  present  prosperity, 
is  involved  in  much  obscurity.  For  they  suddenly 
started  up  in  various  countries  of  Europe,  under 
influence  of  leaders  of  dissimilar  characters  and 
views,  and  at  a  time  when  the  first  contests  with 
the  Catholics  so  engrossed  the  attention  of  all, 
that  they  scarcely  noticed  any  other  passing  oc- 
currences. The  modern  Mennonites  affirm  that 
their  predecessors  were  the  descendants  of  those 
Waldenses  who  were  oppressed  by  the  tyranny  of 
the  past,  and  that  they  were  a  most  pure  off- 
spring, and  most  averse  from  any  inclinations 
towards  seditions  as  from  all  fanatical  views." 
We  might  quote  further  from  this  article,  but  is 
it  not  clear  that  he,  too,  believed  that  the  Ana- 
baptist came  from  the  early  days  of  Christian- 
ity? He  does  not  come  right  out  with  the  exact 
words,  but  what  he  says  is  what  we  claim. 


17 


We  will  mention  just  one  or  two  more  utter- 
ances from  history,  then  we  will  pass  to  another 
phase  of  the  question.  The  next  we  wish  to  quote 
from  is  Dr.  William  Whitsitt,  who  had  such  a 
squabble  with  our  leaders  over  a  simple  state- 
ment he  made  about  the  English  Anabaptist. 
In  his  little  book  that  caused  so  much  comment 
he  says  this:  "Immersion  as  a  religious  rite  was 
practiced  by  John  the  Baptist  about  the  year 
thirty  of  our  era,  and  was  solemnly  enjoined  by 
our  Saviour  upon  all  of  our  ministers  to  the  end 
of  time.  No  other  observance  was  in  use  for  bap- 
tism in  New  Testament  times.  The  practice, 
though  sometimes  greatly  perverted,  has  yet  been 
continued  from  the  Apostolic  age  down  to  the 
present."  Dr.  Whitsitt  was  a  great  scholar.  He 
made  considerable  research.  He  was  a  little 
cranky,  but  we  feel  that  he  was  an  honest  man. 
He  puts  the  matter  clear  enough  for  any  one  to 
see.  Baptist  have  been  here  all  of  these  years. 
They  have  not  been  called  Baptist  all  the  time, 
but  they  have  been  the  offspring  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist just  the  same,  and  because  of  this  they  have 
been  called  Baptist. 

We  will  mention  just  one  more  extract  from 
Ray's  Baptist  Succession,  p.  85.  Dr.  Ray  had 
heard  that  Prof.  William  Williams  did  not  believe 
in  Baptist  succession,  and  yet  he  was  the  pro- 
fessor of  church  history  in  the  Southern  Baptist 
Theological  Seminary,  then  situated  at  Greenville, 
S.  C.  In  reply  to  Dr.  Ray  he  said,  "You  ask, 
'Have  the  Baptist  as  churches  a  divine  or  a  hu- 
man origin?    Have  the  Baptist  originated  from 


18 


the  church  of  Rome,  or  the  Reformation  of  the 
sixteenth  century?'  I  answer  that  the  Baptist 
churches  in  my  opinion,  are  of  divine  origin,  and 
originated  in  the  first  century  under  the  preach- 
ing and  founding  of  the  apostles  of  our  Lord. 
They  were  not  called  Baptist  churches  because 
they  had  no  need  of  any  name  as  there  was  not 
in  that  age  any  other  kind  of  church  under  the 
divine  order  of  things.  Very  truly, 

Your  brother  in  Christ, 

Wm.  WILLIAMS." 

Now,  we  have  set  forth  the  Baptist  claim  as 
nearly  as  we  can  in  the  small  space  allowed  this 
article  in  this  book.  If  we  have  not  satisfied  you, 
will  you  not  read  more  extensive  books?  We  re- 
fer you  to  Ray's  Succession,  Baptist  Perpetuity, 
by  W.  A.  Jarrell,  Orchard's  History  of  the  Baptist, 
Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptist,  John  T.  Chris- 
tian's History  of  the  Baptist,  and  many  other 
works  of  the  same  kind,  but  the  above  are  the 
best  we  know  of. 

Baptist  are  from  God.  They  came  as  a  direct 
result  of  the  labors  of  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus 
Christ  the  Son  of  God.  They  have  stood  the 
abuse  of  all  the  ages,  they  have  gone  through 
all  kinds  of  imprisonments,  they  have  stood  fire 
and  sword,  and  they  are  still  willing  to  suffer 
persecution  if  it  takes  this  to  keep  the  pure  gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ  in  this  world.  They  have  been 
tested  to  the  utmost,  but  still  they  live  and  will 
continue  to  live  until  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  gathered  home  to  be  with  Him  who 
doeth  all  things  well. 


19 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  AMERICAN  BAPTIST 


Much  has  been  said  about  the  origin  of  the 
American  Baptist,  and  we  feel  that  this  little 
book  would  not  be  complete  if  it  did  not  give  a 
full  account  of  their  origin.  Of  course,  we  cannot 
give  many  quotations,  but  we  have  all  of  the 
books  in  our  possession  that  we  refer  to  so  that 
if  any  one  doubts  our  statements  about  these 
matters,  they  may  examine  them  for  themselves. 

The  most  of  our  pedobaptist  friends  say  that 
we  originated  with  Roger  Williams  in  Rhode  Is- 
land. This  is  not  true,  because  Dr.  John  Clark 
was  here  preaching  Baptist  doctrine  many  years 
before  Roger  Williams  decided  that  immersion 
was  the  New  Testament  idea  of  Baptism.  (See 
Ford's  Origin  of  the  Baptist.  This  has  all  the  ar- 
gument necessary  to  clear  up  the  question  to  any 
sane  mind) .  Dr.  John  Clark  came  to  this  country 
from  England,  and  was  a  Baptist  when  he  came 
here.  But  you  say  "Where  did  the  English  Bap- 
tist come  from?"  This  is  an  easy  question  to  set- 
tle. All  historians  admit  that  the  English  Bap- 
tist came  from  Wales.  The  next  question  that 
arises  at  this  point  then,  is  where  did  the  Welsh 
Baptist  come  from?  We  can  settle  this  very 
easily.  Please  turn  to  Davis'  History  of  the 
Welsh  Baptist,  page  5-7  and  read  the  following: 
"By  what  means  the  Christian  religion  was  first 
introduced  into  Britain,  is  a  matter  which  has 
often  engaged  the  pens  of  historians,  but  whose 
records  do  not  always  agree.    The  tradition  that 


20 


Joseph  of  Aramathea  was  the  first  who  preached 
the  gospel  in  Britain,  at  a  place  called  Glasten- 
bury,  the  wicker  chapel  built  for  him  by  the  an- 
cient Britons,  and  his  walking  stick  growing  to 
a  plumbtree,  might  be  worthy  of  the  attention  of 
those  who  can  believe  any  thing.  However,  we 
are  willing  for  those  who  believe  that  the  good 
man  who  buried  our  blessed  Redeemer  also  pro- 
claimed salvation  in  his  name  to  our  forefathers, 
to  enjoy  their  own  opinion.  That  the  Apostle 
Paul  also  preached  the  gospel  to  the  ancient  Brit- 
ons, is  very  probable  from  the  testimony  of  Theo- 
doret  and  Jerome ;  but  that  he  was  the  first  that 
introduced  the  gospel  to  this  island  cannot  be 
admitted;  for  he  was  a  prisoner  in  Rome  at  the 
time  the  good  news  of  salvation  through  the 
blood  of  Christ  reached  this  region.  That  the 
Apostle  Paul  had  great  encouragement  to  visit 
this  country  afterwards,  will  not  be  denied.  When 
we  consider  the  particular  inducement  he  might 
have  had  from  Pomponia,  Grecina,  and  Claudia 
Ruffina,  the  saints  in  Ceasar's  household;  the 
former  wife  of  Aulus  Plautius,  the  first  Roman 
governor  in  Britain,  and  the  latter  a  born  Briton, 
the  daughter  of  Caractacus  the  Welsh  king, 
whose    husband    was    Prudence,    a    believer    in 

Christ." About  fifty  years 

before  the  birth  of  our  Saviour,  the  Romans  in- 
vaded the  British  Isle,  in  the  reign  of  the  Welsh 
king,  Cassibellan;  but  having  failed,  in  conse- 
quence of  other  and  more  important  wars,  to  con- 
quer the  Welsh  nation,  made  peace  with  them, 
and  dwelt  among  them  for  many  years.     Dur- 


21 


ing  that  period  many  of  the  Welsh  soldiers  joined 
the  Roman  army,  and  many  families  from  Wales 
visited  Rome;  among  whom  there  was  a  certain 
woman  of  the  name  of  Claudia,  who  was  married 
to  a  man  named  Pudence.  At  the  same  time, 
Paul  was  sent  a  prisoner  to  Rome,  and  preached 
there  in  his  own  hired  house,  for  the  space  of  two 
years,  about  the  year  of  our  Lord  63.  See  Acts 
28:30.  Pudence  and  Claudia,  his  wife,  who  be- 
longed to  Ceasar's  household,  under  the  blessings 
of  God  on  Paul's  preaching,  were  brought  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus, 
and  made  a  profession  of  the  Christian  religion. 
See  2  Tim.  4:21.  These,  together  with  other 
Welshmen,  among  the  Roman  soldiers,  who  had 
tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious,  exerted  them- 
selves on  the  behalf  of  their  countrymen  in  Wales, 
and  who  at  that  time  were  vile  idolaters." 

Much  more  might  be  quoted  from  this  very 
valuable  book,  but  is  this  not  enough  for  any 
reasonable  mind  ?  We  believe  that  it  is.  The  man 
who  wants  to  know  the  truth  does  not  want  far- 
fetched evidence.  This  that  we  have  produced 
is  not  farfetched,  but  is  the  direct  evidence  of 
our  best  historians.  From  these  facts,  we  see 
that  Christianity  was  planted  in  Wales  by  the 
converts  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  that  the  Eng- 
lish Baptist  originated  from  the  Welsh  Baptist. 
Please  see  "Did  They  Dip?"  by  John  T.  Christ- 
ian. The  English  Baptist  came  to  New  England 
by  the  hundreds.  These  peopled  all  of  the  north- 
ern states  so  that  we  may  say  our  northern 
brethren  came  directly  from  the  English  Bap- 


2? 


tiat. 

Possibly  a  word  about  the  Southern  Bap- 
tist will  not  be  out  of  place  at  this  point.  Cath- 
cart  in  his  encyclopedia  has  this  to  say:  "Six- 
teen Baptist  about  to  emigrate  to  America,  form- 
ed themselves  into  a  Baptist  church  in  1701,  with 
Rev.  Thomas  Griffith,  one  of  their  number,  as 
pastor.  They  came  to  Pennpek,  now  in  Phila- 
delphia, Pa.,  where  there  was  a  Welsh  Baptist 
church.  Leaving  in  this  place  some  of  their  num- 
ber, and  receiving  accessions  in  return  they  re- 
moved, in  1703,  to  Iron  Hill,  in  the  Welsh  Tract, 
New  Castle  Co.,  Del.  At  that  time  a  part  of  Penn- 
sylvania. In  1738,  this  colony  moved  to  the  Pee 
Dee  section  of  South  Carolina  and  organized  the 
Old  Welsh  Neck  church  near  Society  Hill,  S.  C. 
This  church  soon  began  missionary  operation,  and 
it  was  not  long  until  it  had  numbers  of  arms 
organized  and  doing  business  for  their  king. 
Among  these  arms  were  the  Old  Lanes  Creek 
church  in  Union  County,  N.  C,  and  Meadow 
Branch  as  an  arm  of  this  and  other  churches 
around  there.  In  fact,  nearly  all  of  the  old  church- 
es in  that  section  were  the  offsprings  of  the  old 
Welsh  Baptist  church.  The  Welsh  Neck  Baptist 
association  came  from  this  church. 

This,  then  proves  that  the  American  Baptist 
are  the  descendants  of  the  converts  of  the  Apostle 
Paul.  We  believe  that  this  is  enough  to  convince 
any  one  that  we  have  the  original  New  Testament 
Baptist  right  here  in  the  south.  Further  argu- 
ment cannot  be  continued  here  as  space  will  not 
admit  it 


23 


CHAPTER  II 

WHO  ARE  THE  ORIGINAL  BAPTIST 

Another  question  must  be  settled  before  we 
pass  to  the  main  matter  of  this  history,  this  is 
the  question  of  church  identity.  Who  are  the 
Primitive  Baptist?  There  are  two  sects  claiming 
the  honor,  one  sect  calls  itself  Primitive,  or  Old 
Baptist,  the  other  is  called  Missionary  Baptist. 
The  first  mentioned  claims  that  they  are  the  ori- 
ginal New  Testament  church,  the  Missionary 
claims  the  same  thing;  now  who  is  right  about 
this  matter?  Is  there  no  way  by  which  this  im- 
portant question  may  be  settled?  Has  the  Lord 
Jesus  left  his  church  so  uncertain  that  it  cannot 
be  identified?  We  do  not  think  so.  Would  it  be 
justice  to  His  church  to  leave  it  so  that  it  cannot 
be  located  without  any  trouble?  Most  surely 
it  would  not  be.  To  settle  this  once  for  all,  we  are 
giving  an  entire  chapter  to  a  discussion  of  this 
question.  We  might  mention  the  fact  that  there 
are  more  than  two  kinds  of  Baptist,  but  the  ques- 
tion does  not  lie  between  but  two  of  them,  the 
Missionaries  and  the  Primitives,  or  Hardshells, 
the  others,  such  as  the  Seventh  Day  Baptist,  the 
Adventist,  the  German  Baptist,  the  Freewills, 
and  the  Campbellites  are  of  very  recent  origin, 
consequently  they  are  not  in  this  question  at 
all.  It  is  a  matter  entirely  between  the  two  de- 
nominations we  mentioned  at  first.  They  were 
a  part  of  our  body  at  one  time,  or  they  were  in 


24 


some  sections  at  least.  They  never  joined  in  with 
us  in  every  place,  but  only  where  the  brethren 
tried  to  form  a  union.  In  1832,  a  surgical  opera- 
tion was  performed  on  the  Baptist  denomination 
of  the  United  States  that  severed  the  Hardshells 
from  us,  and  since  that  time  the  question  has 
been,  "Which  is  the  body,  the  part  that  was  am- 
putated or  the  part  that  was  left?  Is  the  Mis- 
sionary Baptist  the  part  that  was  left?  We  do 
not  think  we  can  possibly  make  it  any  plainer. 
They  left  us.  They  said  they  did.  Their  minutes 
show  that  they  organized  their  associations  after 
this  split.  Now,  if  a  boy  marries  a  wife  and  sets 
out  for  himself,  who  can  lay  claim  to  the  original 
home,  the  old  parents,  or  the  new  home?  This 
is  too  simple.  Any  ten  year  old  child  can  answer 
this.  They  left  us  and  set  up  a  denomination 
of  their  own.  "They  went  out  from  us,  but  they 
were  not  of  us;  for  if  they  had  been  of  us,  they 
would  no  doubt  have  continued  with  us ;  but  they 
went  out,  that  they  might  be  manifest  that  they 
were  not  all  of  us.  IJno.  2 :19."  We  claim  that  the 
Missionary  Baptist  are  the  original  apostolic  Bap- 
tist, and  that  no  church  can  claim  New  Testament 
identity  without  being  missionary.  Now,  let  it 
be  understood  in  the  very  beginning  of  this  article 
as  to  what  our  real  intention  is.  We  want  to  say, 
first  of  all,  that  we  have  no  personal  flings  to 
make  at  anybody.  This  is  too  important  a  matter 
to  trifle  with.  We  do  not  believe  in  personal 
thrusts.  We  do  not  want  to  make  any.  We  are 
discussing  a  system,  a  denomination,  a  creed  and 
not  a  person,  or  persons.    An  opponent  is  grab- 


25 


bing  for  straws  when  he  begins  to  use  abusive 
language  to  carry  his  point.  We  have  many 
friends  who  believe  in  the  antinomian  doctrine. 
Many  of  them  were  reared  to  believe  that  way; 
others  have  not  given  it  the  real  thought  they 
ought  to  have  done.  We  love  them,  but  cannot 
referain  from  the  truth  when  it  comes  to  histori- 
cal facts.  They  do  not  want  us  to  deviate  from 
it  in  the  least,  we  are  sure.  We  truly  hope  that 
the  reader  may  lay  prejudice  aside  for  the  time 
being  and  reason  with  us  as  we  look  at  this  im- 
portant question.  We  cannot  give  as  much  in- 
formation here  as  we  desire,  but  if  you  want  to 
go  further  into  this  matter,  read  Prof.  Carroll's 
History  of  Anti-Missionism  in  America.  This  has 
all  you  need  to  know  about  it.  We  are  discuss- 
ing this  because  so  many  of  the  Anti-Missionaries 
think  that  their  denomination  is  the  original 
church,  and,  too,  many  Missionaries  think  the 
same  because  they  have  never  heard  the  Hard- 
shell claim  denied.  Many  of  these  are  honest, 
but  honesty  in  believing  a  thing  does  not  make 
it  true.  For  us  to  determine  who  are  the  New 
Testament  Baptist,  we  must  notice  some  of  their 
characteristics  before  "the  split." 

1.  The  Baptist  were  great  advocates  of  Bible 
revision.  They  believed  that  the  Bible  ought 
to  be  translated  into  our  native  tongue.  Rome 
said  that  it  would  not  do,  but  Baptist  did  all  they 
could  to  give  God's  word  to  the  laity  and  the 
unlearned  people  of  the  English  speaking  world. 
Now,  did  the  Anti-Missionaries  ever  contend  for 
a  thing  like  this?    Have  they  ever  tried  to  look 


26 


into  any  of  the  translations  to  see  if  they  were 
authentic?  They  have  not,  but  they  have  ridi- 
culed learning  and  Bible  investigation  so  that  the 
masses  of  their  communicants  are  bitterly  op- 
posed to  any  revision,  and  some  are  opposed  to 
reading  the  Bible  at  all.  Here  they  stand  with 
Rome  and  not  with  the  Baptist. 

2.  The  original  Baptist  contended  for  an  edu- 
cated ministry  and  believed  profundly  in  educa- 
tion. They  had  schools  and  colleges  many  years 
before  the  divisions  came  about.  Several  were 
established  in  this  country,  especially  in  the 
north.  The  Charleston  association  had  a  com- 
mittee appointed  to  look  after  this  matter.  Let 
us  notice  this  extract  from  a  paper  written  by 
Dr.  Furman  in  1821.  Now,  this  was  eleven  years 
before  "the  split"  took  place.  Here  is  what  he 
says:  "The  churches  in  the  Charleston  associa- 
tion, nearly  thirty  years  ago,  established  a  Gen- 
eral Committee  of  their  body,  to  act  in  concert 
with  the  association,  to  superintend  the  common 
secular  interests  of  the  churches,  and  to  have  the 
disposal  of  a  fund  provided  for  at  the  same  time ; 
the  principal  object  of  which  was  the  education 
of  pious  young  men  for  the  gospel  ministry  as 
stated  above,  when  destitute  of  other  assistance. 
To  this  committee,  also,  they  have  since  commit- 
ted the  concerns  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Mis- 
sions, for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel,  in  con- 
cert with  other  bodies,  as  an  auxiliary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  of  Baptist  churches  in  the  United 
States,  or  a  constituent  part  of  that  body.  This 
General  Committee  is  an  incorporated  body,  by 


27 


act  of  the  state,  and  therefore  known  in  law. 
They  have  gratuitously  educated  a  respectable 
number  of  ministers,  some  of  whom  have  become 
eminent,  have  provided  a  theological  library  for 
students  in  divinity,  have  furnished  poor  minis- 
ters, in  several  instances,  with  useful  books, 
gratis;  and  for  more  than  twenty  years,  have 
supported  a  missionary,  and,  during  a  consider- 
able part  of  the  time,  a  school  among  the  Catawba 
Indians."  We  will  not  quote  further,  but  is  this 
not  interesting  matter  since  it  comes  from  the 
pen  of  a  man  who  wrote  many  years  before  "the 
split"  came?  Yes,  they  believed  and  supported 
education  to  the  fullest.  Who  are  the  supporters 
of  our  Christian  schools  today?  Is  it  the 
Hardshells?  Who  ever  heard  of  their  building 
a  single  school  ?  No  one.  They  oppose  all  of  our 
theological  institutions,  and  ridicule  ministerial 
education,  but  the  old  time  Baptist  did  not.  They 
craved  an  educated  ministry.  They  did  all  they 
could  to  have  an  educated  ministry.  Who  con- 
tends for  such  today?  Is  it  not  the  Missionary 
Baptist?  They  have  an  educated  ministry  for 
the  most  part,  and  believe  in  it  most  profundly. 
If  you  find  one  who  does  not,  he  is  more  Hardshell 
than  Missionary.  Missionary  Baptist  believe  so 
much  in  education  now  that  they  are  raising  a 
round  million  dollars  in  North  Carolina  for  the 
endowment  of  our  schools  and  colleges.  Who  ever 
heard  tell  of  a  Hardshell  raising  an  endowment 
fund?  They  have  no  schools,  no  seminaries,  not 
even  an  orphan  asylum.  They  boast  of  their  ig- 
norance, and  do  what  they  can  to  propagate  it. 


28 


The  Wingate  School  was  built  to  further  the  cause 
of  education  in  this  section.  If  you  wish  to  see 
what  it  has  done,  see  the  story  of  this  school  given 
in  the  author's  history  of  the  Union  Baptist  As- 
sociation. It  has  done  great  good  for  this  sec- 
tion, but  it  has  been  fostered  by  the  Missionary 
Baptist.  We  are  glad  to  note  that  many  Hard- 
shells  have  patronized  it,  but  it  has  been  con- 
trolled by  this  association.  Let  us  see  one  more 
reference  from  history.  Rippon's  Register,  vol. 
1,  p.  97.  Here  is  what  he  says  about  the  Phila- 
delphia Association  which  met  Tuesday,  Oct.  6th, 
1789:  On  Wednesday  the  following  took  place: 
"Met  this  morning  at  six  o'clock  for  prayer.  In 
the  forenoon  read  very  agreeable  letters  from 
several  associations,  conferred  upon  the  necessity 
and  importance  of  raising  a  fund  for  the  educa- 
tion of  pious  and  promising  young  men  for  the 
ministry,  and  engaged  to  promote  subscriptions 
for  said  purpose."  Now,  here  are  statements 
from  the  two  most  important  associations  in  the 
United  States  at  this  time.  Both  of  them  agree 
that  they  were  in  hearty  sympathy  with  educa- 
tion, and  that  they  were  so  much  enthused  over 
the  matter  that  they  actually  had  prayer  meet- 
ings to  pray  for  God  to  call  young  men  into  the 
ministry.  We  might  refer  you  to  other  associa- 
tions of  this  day,  but  they  all  agreed  on  this  mat- 
ter. The  Baptist  before  "the  split"  were  mis- 
sionary in  faith  and  practice. 

3.  They  had  days  of  fasting  and  prayer.  So 
many  of  these  are  mentioned  in  the  old  records 
that  we  cannot  notice  them  all.    We  will  give  a 


29 


few  of  them  from  the  best  records  we  can  find. 
The  first  we  wish  to  give  is  from  Rippon's  Reg- 
ister, vol.  1,  p.  105:  "May  13th,  1790,  forty-two 
years  before  'the  split,'  I  proposed  to  our  mem- 
bers a  meeting  to  join  with  you  and  the  rest  of 
the  churches  in  England,  who  keep  a  monthly 
evening  meeting  in  prayer  to  God  for  a  revival  of 
religion.  It  was  agreed  to:  accordingly  we  met, 
and  I  trust  that  God  was  with  us.  All  of  our 
members  are  much  aroused,  and  some  young  peo- 
ple are  under  very  serious  impressions.  We  find 
that  several  days  were  set  apart  for  prayer  and 
fasting  by  the  churches  of  the  Kehukee  associa- 
tion. At  this  time  the  churches  began  earnestly 
to  desire  a  revival  of  religion,  and  set  apart  two 
days  of  fasting  and  prayer,  to  solicit  the  throne 
of  grace  for  a  revival."  Burkett  and  Read's  His- 
tory of  the  Old  Kehukee,  1803,  p.  61,  again— "In 
consequence  of  a  motion  made  by  Elder  J.  Mc- 
Cabe,  the  Association  thought  proper  to  advise 
the  several  churches  (  in  order  to  remove  the 
general  complaint  of  coldness  in  religion),  to  set 
apart  some  time  every  day  between  sunset  and 
dark,  to  be  engaged  in  private  prayer  to  the  Lord 
for  a  revival  of  religion."  Same  history  mention- 
ed above,  p.  77.  Now  does  this  sound  anything 
like  a  Hardshell  meeting?  By  no  means.  This 
was  a  Missionary  body  indeed.  True,  it  became 
antinomian  in  the  last,  but  it  was  not  until  pois- 
oned by  the  outsider. 

4.  One  more  thing  we  notice  about  the  church- 
es before  "the  split."  They  were  a  great  folk  for 
revivals.     The  references  we  made  just  above 


30 


this  to  show  that  they  believed  in  fasting  and 
prayer,  shows  also  that  they  believed  implicitly  in 
revivals.  They  had  revivals  just  as  the  Mission- 
aries do  today,  only  that  they  did  not  make  con- 
version just  an  act  of  the  mind  as  some  of  our 
modern  evangelists  do  today.  They  had  the  old 
time  mourners  to  come  forward  and  remain  at  the 
front  seat.  We  have  seen  an  old  sister  who  re- 
members when  mourners  were  invited  in  one  of 
the  Hardshell  churches  of  Stanley  county.  Oth- 
ers are  mentioned  in  The  History  of  the  Liberty 
Association,  written  by  Elder  Henry  Sheets.  The 
history  of  the  Baptist  is  a  history  of  revivals. 
The  one  we  wish  to  men  tion  most  is  that  of  1800- 
1803.  Mr.  Benedict,  in  speaking  of  the  great  re- 
vival that  swept  over  several  states  in  the  South 
like  a  great  tidal  wave  in  1800-1803,  was  of  such 
extraordinary  character  that  he  says  of  it:  "The 
above  relation  was  given  me  by  Rev.  George 
Pope,  the  pastor  of  the  church  at  Abbott's  Creek, 
who  is  a  man  of  sense  and  moderation,  and  who, 
with  many  of  his  brethren,  was  much  tried  in 
his  mind  and  stood  aloof  from  the  work  at  its 
commencement,  but  it  spread  so  rapidly  and  so 
powerfully  that  they  soon  discovered  such  evident 
marks  of  its  being  a  genuine  work  of  grace,  not 
withstanding  its  new  and  unusual  appearances, 
that  their  doubts  subsided,  and  they  cordially  and 
zealously  engaged  in  forwarding  and  promoting 
it.  Mr.  Pope,  in  the  course  of  the  revival,  bap- 
tized about  five  hundred  persons.  History  of  the 
Liberty  Association,  p.  43.  I  might  give  many 
more  references  in  regard  to  this  great  revival 


31 


and  others  just  as  great,  and  these  references  by 
the  most  distinguished  historians,  but  it  is  use- 
less to  mention  so  many  to  prove  a  point  like  this 
when  the  story  of  many  of  them  has  been  handed 
down  from  age  to  age  by  our  foreparents.  They 
held  them  in  New  Testament  days,  and  since  that 
time  evangelism  has  been  the  keynote  of  the 
churches  of  Jesus  Christ. 

5.  We  want  to  say  in  the  next  place  that  Bap- 
tist have  always  been  missionary.  Evangelism 
and  missions  always  go  hand  in  hand.  They  can- 
not be  separated.  Missions  and  evangelism  are 
dependent  the  one  upon  the  other.  In  order  to 
prove  the  above  statement  we  will  give  some  im- 
portant quotations  from  Benedict's  History  of 
the  Baptist,  1848  edition.  "Old  School  and  Primi- 
tive Baptist  are  appellations  so  entirely  out  of 
place,  that  I  cannot,  even  as  a  matter  of  courtesy, 
use  them  without  adding,  so-called,  or  some  such 
expression.  I  have  seen  so  much  of  the  mission- 
ary spirit  among  the  old  Anabaptist,  Waldesians, 
and  other  sects ;  so  vigorous  and  perpetual  were 
the  efforts  of  those  Christians,  whom  we  claim  as 
Baptist,  in  early,  middle,  and  later  ages,  to  spread 
the  gospel  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  among  all 
nations  and  languages  where  they  could  gain 
access,  that  it  is  plain  that  those  who  merely 
preach  up  predestination,  and  do  nothing,  have 
no  claim  to  be  called  by  their  name."  Is  this 
not  too  true?  But  a  name  does  not  make  a  his- 
torical fact  true.  It  takes  more  than  this.  Let 
us  notice  one  more  reference  to  the  above  men- 
tioned history.    "The  farther  down  I  go  into  the 


32 


regions  of  antiquity,  the  more  fully  is  the  mission- 
ary character  of  all  whom  we  denominate  our  sen- 
timental brethren  developed.  Propagandism  was 
their  motto  and  their  watch-word.  They  seldom 
went  alone,  but  two  and  two  was  the  order  of 
their  going  out,  and  such  was  the  order  of  their 
zeal  in  their  hazardous  vocations,  that  no  ordi- 
nary obstacle  could  alarm  their  fears  or  impede 
their  progress.  As  nothing  of  this  kind  appears 
among  the  opponents  of  the  missionary  enter- 
prise, I  cannot,  with  my  views  of  duty  as  an  hon- 
est historian,  apply  to  them  the  terms  in  question, 
as  I  fully  believe  they  mis-apprehend  their  own 
character  in  this  matter.  And,  furthermore,  as 
I  do  not  wish  for  any  controversy  with  them  on 
this  subject,  I  prefer  to  say  but  little  about  it 
p.  935-936."  There  are  the  views  of  an  honest 
historian  who  had  investigated  the  entire  matter 
from  one  end  to  the  other.  It  is  so  sad  to  see  so 
many  honest  people  deluded  by  this  erroneous 
doctrine.  It  is  going  to  cause  many  to  miss  the 
eternal  city.  They  think  the  whole  matter  hinges 
on  God,  and  that  man  has  nothing  to  do  with 
his  salvation. 

Have  we  not  shown  that  the  Missionary  Bap- 
tist are  the  original  Baptist  ?  Have  we  not  shown 
that  they  comply  exactly  with  the  customs  of  the 
ancient  Baptist  and  that  they  are  the  very  people 
Christ  gave  his  commission  to  when  he  was  about 
to  leave  this  world?     Most  surely  we  have. 


33 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  BAPTIST 

Now,  since  we  have  said  what  we  did  in  the 
previous  chapter,  is  it  not  fitting  that  we  show 
just  where  this  ism  originated  ?  We  cannot  do  jus- 
tice to  the  question  without  doing  this. 

Their  claim  in  the  beginning  was  that  they 
were  not  opposed  to  missions,  but  the  modus  oper- 
andi, (manner  of  operating  it) .  The  one  thing  they 
objected  to  most  of  all  was  the  way  Rice  and  oth- 
ers had  of  raising  money  to  further  the  cause  of 
missions.  They  could  not  endure  Boards  and  Con- 
ventions. Oh,  how  repulsive  they  were  to  them. 
They  declared  non-fellowship  with  a  brother  who 
contributed  to  the  mission  cause,  and  became 
greatly  offended  at  anything  any  one  said  in  ad- 
vocacy of  the  missionary  cause.  They  said  that 
God  would  raise  up  men  to  preach  to  the  heathen 
if  they  were  not  converted.  A  more  nonsensical 
thing  could  not  have  been  thought  of.  It  was  not 
the  plan  of  work,  but  covetousness  and  Antinom- 
ian  doctrine  that  came  in  the  way  and  caused 
them  to  do  as  they  did.  The  way  they  have  con- 
ducted themselves  since  this  time  has  proven  to 
the  world  that  it  was.  What  a  man  believes  has 
so  much  to  do  with  him.  God  has  had  his  plan 
through  the  ages.  The  commission  was  given  to 
men  who  had  the  gospel  in  their  hands.  Jesus 
meant  just  what  He  said.  In  a  few  paragraphs 
we  are  going  to  see  what  we  can  determine  about 


34 


the  origin  of  this  denomination  that  has  been  such 
a  deadly  foe  to  the  progress  of  the  cause  of  Christ 
in  this  state,  not  only  among  the  Hardshells,  but 
those  who  claim  to  be  Missionaries.  We  are  sorry 
indeed  to  say  that  many  of  them  are  so  much 
poisoned  with  this  doctrine  that  they  stand  in 
the  way  of  any  progressive  movement,  and  par- 
alyze all  efforts  toward  systematic  giving.  It  does 
not  stop  here,  but  goes  even  further;  they  have 
put  a  spirit  of  bitterness  in  the  brethren  to  the 
extent  that  they  are  bitterly  opposed  to  any  mod- 
ern movement  for  the  advancement  of  the  Mas- 
ter's kingdom.  Since  we  have  Dr.  B.  H.  Carroll, 
Jr's.  book,  "The  History  of  Antimissionism  in 
America,"  before  us,  we  will  quote  quite  freely 
from  it.  Several  things  are  made  clear  that  we 
do  not  need  to  comment  on.  This  quotation  is  from 
pages  85-96: 

The  Rise  of  the  "Hardshells" 
In  studying  the  history  of  any  great  move- 
ment it  is  necessary  to  take  a  view  point.  I  choose 
to  take  my  stand  in  Kentucky  in  studying  the 
Hardshell  split  in  the  Baptist  denomination.  This 
State  has  ever  been,  in  theological  as  well  as 
profane  history,  a  "dark  and  bloody  ground,"  the 
storm  center  of  controversy,  the  battlefield  of 
jarring  religious  opinions.  Her  preachers  have 
ever  been  men  of  war  from  their  youth  upward. 
They  have  been  trained  in  a  stern  school.  "Infi- 
delity," "Deism,"  "Hell-Redemptionism,"  "Park- 
erism,"  or  "Two-Seedism,"  "Campbellism,"  "Hard- 
shellism,"  "Old  Landmarkism,"  "Gospel  Mission- 
ism,"   and   "Whitsittism,"   succeeding  and   over- 


35 


lapping  each  other,  have  for  a  hundred  years  di- 
vided her  forces  and  shorn  her  of  her  power. 
There  is  scarcely  an  Association  in  her  borders 
that  has  not  been  riven  on  one  or  more  of  these 
stones  of  stumbling  and  rocks  of  offence.  Not 
that  all  of  these  issues  have  been  born  here,  or 
that  any  of  them  were  confined  to  this  State,  but 
here  they  were  cradled  and  nurtured.  Contro- 
versy has  always  flourished  in  Kentucky's  fruit- 
ful soil.  It  is  a  place  where  two  seas  meet  and 
where  the  Baptist  ship  has  been  like,  time  and 
again,  to  have  perished.  Here  Greek  has  met 
Greek  with  the  inevitable  tug-of-war.  One  can- 
not but  mourn  when  contemplating  all  the  fierce 
virility  wasted  in  combat  when  heresy-hunter 
and  heresy  monger  have  joined  in  the  rigid  grip 
of  internecine  strife.  How  terrible  the  loss  of 
energy  when  an  irresistible  force  meets  an  im- 
movable body!  When  Kentucky's  two  extremes 
shall  have  tempered  each  other  and  the  fierce 
fires  of  battle  have  been  moderated  to  the  warm 
glow  of  fraternal  love,  and  all  her  exhaustless 
fund  of  energy  shall  be  directed  no  longer  to  the 
uprooting  of  "every  plant  which  our  heavenly 
Father  hath  not  planted,"  but  to  watering  with 
tears  and  tending  and  cultivating  with  devotion 
the  one  he  has  planted,  how  speedy  and  magni- 
ficent will  be  its  growth.  May  God  hasten  that 
time!  But  at  present  our  object  is  to  look  at  the 
mistakes,  the  follies  and  the  sins  of  the  past  that 
constitute  history. 

The  leaders  against  missions  have  been  many. 
The  opposition  against  missions  has  been  one,  in 


36 


origin,  progress,  argument,  and  spirit,  although 
hydra-headed  in  its  various  forms  of  manifesta- 
tion. It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  ascer- 
tain its  genesis  and  trace  and  demonstrate  its 
unity  through  its  varying  forms.  Every  great 
movement  is  to  a  large  extent  identified  with  its 
leaders.  The  biographical  method  is  the  true  one 
by  which  to  study  history.  We  therefore  present 
some  accounts  of  the  three  great  leaders  in  the 
anti-mission  crusade,  together  with  an  outline 
of  their  argument,  from  which  by  an  inductive 
progess  we  hope  to  show  the  spiritual  genealogy 
of  all  anti-missionaries,  whose  number  is  even  at 
the  present  day  great.  The  three  leaders  were 
John  Taylor,  of  Kentucky,  Daniel  Parker,  of  Illi- 
nois, and  Alexander  Campbell,  of  Virginia. 

John  Taylor  was  an  earnest,  consecrated,  self- 
sacrificing  and  conscientious  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel. He  was  the  only  real  Baptist  of  the  three. 
No  man  can  read  the  account  of  his  conversion, 
or  the  story  of  his  efforts  to  evangelize  Kentucky 
for  Christ,  without  feeling  that  he  was  a  con- 
verted and  honest  man.  He  was  the  victim  of 
the  prejudices  engendered  by  his  lack  of  educa- 
tion and  his  early  environment.  Yet  all  his  good 
qualities  but  served  to  give  respectability  and 
force  to  his  opposition  to  the  mission  cause.  It 
is  pleasant  to  recall  that  in  his  later  life  he  was 
more  in  sympathy  with  the  mission  movement 
and  less  timorous  of  the  bugbear  which  he  had 
been  the  first  to  raise.  But,  as  Dr.  Spencer  well 
says :  "His  pamphlet  had  gone  forth  on  its  perni- 
cious mission,  and  probably  did  more  to  check  the 


37 


cause  of  missions  in  Kentucky,  than  any  other 
publication  of  the  period."  For  a  comprehension 
of  the  better  side  of  John  Taylor,  one  should 
read  his  "History  of  Ten  Churches." 

Daniel  Parker  was  contemporary  with  John 
Taylor  and  claims  to  be  the  first  opponent  of  the 
mission  system.  "It  makes  me  shudder  when  I 
think  I  am  the  first  one  (that  I  have  any  knowl- 
edge of)  among  the  thousands  of  zealous  relig- 
ionists of  America,  that  have  ventured  to  draw 
the  sword  against  the  error,  or  to  shoot  at  it  and 
spare  no  arrows."  But  it  is  doubtful  if  this  state- 
ment be  true.  Taylor  wrote  in  1819,  Parker  in 
1820  and  his  pamphlet  was  republished  in  1824, 
at  which  time  it  was  printed  at  Lexington,  Ken- 
tucky, along  with  another  on  the  same  topic  and 
rehashing  the  same  argument,  addressed  to  Maria 
Creek  Church.  Parker  was  a  son  of  John  Parker. 
He  was  born  in  Culpepper  county,  Virginia,  reared 
in  Georgia  amid  extreme  poverty  and  ignorance, 
baptized  in  1802,  and  licensed  shortly  after.  In 
1803  he  removed  to  Trumbull  Church  in  Tennes- 
see, was  ordained  there  in  1806,  and  moved  to 
southeastern  Illinois  in  1817.  He  claims,  to  have 
traveled  through  a  great  many  of  the  States  of 
America.  In  1810,  an  old  brother  in  Tennessee 
advocated  in  a  crude  form  the  Two-Seed  Doc- 
trine. Parker  rebuked  him  for  it,  but  in  1826  set 
forth  in  pamphlet  an  elaboratation  of  the  same 
views. 

It  is  not  easy  to  explain,  at  least  what  was 
meant  by  Mr.  Parker  himself,  in  the  phrase 
"Two-Seed,"  which  in  time  became  so  notorious. 


38 


This  at  least  may  be  said:  the  teaching  repre- 
sented by  it  was  that  form  of  antinomonianism 
which  carried  the  doctrine  of  predestination  to 
its  utmost  extreme. 

Statement  of  the  Doctrine 

The  essence  of  God  is  good;  the  essence  of 
evil  is  the  Devil.  God's  angels  are  emanations 
from  or  particles  of  God ;  evil  angels  are  particles 
of  the  Devil.  When  God  created  Adam  and  Eve, 
they  were  endowed  with  an  emanation  from  Him- 
self, or  particles  of  God  were  included  in  their 
constitution.  They  were  wholly  good.  Satan,  how- 
ever, diffused  into  them  particles  of  his  essence 
by  which  they  were  corrupted.  In  the  beginning 
God  had  appointed  that  Eve  should  bring  forth 
only  a  certain  number  of  offspring ;  the  same  pro- 
visions applied  to  each  of  her  daughters.  But 
when  the  particles  of  evil  essence  had  been  in- 
fused by  Satan,  the  conception  of  Eve  and  her 
daughters  was  increased.  They  were  now  requir- 
ed to  bear  the  original  number,  who  were  styled 
the  seed  of  God,  and  an  additional  number  who 
were  called  the  seed  of  the  serpent. 

This  Two-Seed  doctrine  is  a  curious  revival, 
with  some  modifications  of  the  ancient  specula- 
tive philosophy  of  Manichaeus.  Dr.  Newman  calls 
it  a  "very  disgusting  form  of  Gnostic  heresy." 
It  is  easy  to  see  how  such  a  heresy  would  cause 
opposition  to  missions,  for  the  progeny  of  one  of 
the  seed  would  constitute  the  body  of  Christ, 
whose  salvation  is  certain;  for  the  other,  no  sal- 
vation is  provided.  The  following  quotation  is 
taken  from  page  11  of  a  copy  of  the  first  min- 


39 


utes  of  the  General  Association  of  Baptists  in 
Kentucky,  organized  at  Louisville,  Friday,  Octo- 
ber 20th,  1837. 

The  Anti-missionary  spirit  owes  its  origin  to 
the  notorious  Daniel  Parker.    He  was  the  first 
person  called  Baptist  that  lent  a  hand  to  the  In- 
fidel, and  Papist  in  opposing  the  proclamation  of 
the  gospel  to  every  creature,  and  the  translation 
and  circulation  of  the  Scriptures  in  all  languages 
and  among  all  people.    Possessing  a  strong  na- 
tive intellect,  and  a  bold  adventurous  imagination 
— with  a  mind  cast  in  nature's  most  capacious 
mold,  but  for  want  of  cultivation  admirably  cal- 
culated to  be  the  receptacle  of  notions,  the  most 
crude,  extravagant  and  chimerical,  he  generated 
an  Utopian  scheme  of  theology,  the  tendency  of 
which  was  to  subvert  all  practical  religion.   The 
grounds  of  his  opposition  to  missions  were — that 
the  devil  was  an  eternal  "self-subsistent  being" 
(to  use  his  own  phrase)  ;  that  though  God  had 
created  all,  yet  the  devil  begat  a  part  of  man- 
kind; that  those  begotten  of  the  devil  were  his 
bona  fide  children,  and  to  their  father  they  would 
and  ought  to  go ;  and  of  course  sending  them  the 
gospel  and  giving  them  the  Bible  were  acts  of 
such  gross  and  supreme  folly  that  no  Christian 
should  be  engaged  in  them!  On  the  other  hand 
he  taught  that  the  remaining  portion  of  the  hu- 
man family  were  the  actual  sons  of  God  from 
eternity,  and  being  allied  to  Jesus  Christ  ere  "the 
morning  stars  sang  together  and  all  the  sons  of 
God  shouted  for  joy"  by  the  nearest  and  dear- 
est ties  ot  consanguinity,  being  no  less  than  "par- 


40 


tides'  of  his  body — bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh 
of  his  flesh,  the  Redeemer  would  nolens  volens, 
take  them  to  mansions  prepared  for  them  in 
bliss;  and  hence  Mr.  Parker  very  wisely  conclud- 
ed, that  if  such  were  the  case,  the  Lord  had  very 
little  use  for  the  Bible  or  Missionary  Societies. 
But  there  were  many  who  embraced  only  half  the 
doctrine  of  Mr.  Parker  and  though  they  mani- 
fested no  great  apprehension  for  the  liege  sub- 
jects of  the  Prince  of  Darkness,  yet  they  express- 
ed great  alarm  lest  the  missionaries  should  help 
the  Lord  to  perform  his  work,  and  convert  the 
souls  of  some  in  a  way  God  never  intended  they 
should  be.  They  were  such  staunch  friends  of 
the  Lord's,  doing  all  His  work,  that  they  set  upon 
and  terribly  assailed  their  missionary  brethren, 
for  fear  they  should  by  some  means  assist  the 
Lord  in  the  salvation  of  his  elect!  In  their  zeal 
against  these  ambitious  strides  of  the  mission- 
aries, they  have  occasioned  great  disturbance 
and  distress — and  destroying  the  Peace  of  Zion, 
the  progress  of  religion  has  been  greatly  retard- 
ed, and  the  influence  and  usefulness  of  many 
ministers  and  churches  utterly  paralyzed. 

Dr.  Carroll,  of  Texas,  in  a  speech  before  the 
Southern  Baptist  Convention  at  Hot  Springs, 
Arkansas,  in  1900,  compared  Parker  in  his  vio- 
lence to  a  wild  boar  rooting  up  the  tender  plants 
in  a  garden.  The  following  description  of  the 
person  and  personality  of  Daniel  Parker  was  writ- 
ten by  Dr.  John  M.  Peck,  of  Home  Mission  fame, 
while  Parker  was  still  alive  and  active : 

Mr.  Parker  is  one  of  those  singular  and  extra- 


41 


ordinary  beings  whom  divine  Providence  permits 
to  arise  as  a  scourge  to  his  church,  and  a  stumb- 
ling block  in  the  way  of  religious  effort.  Raised 
on  the  frontier  of  Georgia,  (by  others  he  is  spok- 
en of  as  a  native  of  Virginia) ,  without  education, 
uncouth  in  manner,  slovenly  in  dress,  diminutive 
in  person,  unprepossessing  in  appearance,  with 
shriveled  features  and  a  small,  piercing  eye,  few 
men  for  a  series  of  years  have  exercised  a  wider 
influence  on  the  lower  and  less  educated  class  of 
frontier  people.  With  a  zeal  and  an  enthusiasm 
bordering  on  insanity,  firmness  that  amounted  to 
obstinacy,  and  perseverance  that  would  have  done 
honor  to  a  good  cause,  Daniel  Parker  exerted 
himself  to  the  utmost  to  induce  churches  to  de- 
clare non-fellowship  with  all  Baptist  who  united 
themselves  with  any  of  the  benevolent  (or  as  he 
called  them  "newfangled")  societies. 

His  mind,  we  are  told,  was  of  a  singular  and 
original  sort.  In  doctrine  he  was  antinomian.  He 
believed  himself  inspired,  and  so  persuaded  oth- 
ers. Repeatedly  we  have  heard  him  when  his 
mind  seemed  to  soar  above  his  own  powers,  and 
he  would  discourse  for  a  few  moments  on  divine 
attributes  or  on  some  devotional  subject,  with 
such  brilliancy  of  thought  and  correctness  of 
language  as  would  astonish  men  of  education  and 
talents.  Then  again  it  would  seem  as  if  he  were 
perfectly  bewildered  in  a  maze  of  abstruse  sub- 
tleties. 

Besides  his  itineracy  among  the  churches, 
Parker  was  a  writer,  and  among  other  things 
published    for    a    time    a    periodical    called    the 


42 


"Church  Advocate."  How  much  a  person  of  in- 
fluence he  was  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  during 
four  years,  from  1822  to  1826,  he  was  a  member 
of  the  Illinois  State  Senate.  His  disastrous  ca- 
reer in  Illinois  and  Indiana  came  to  a  close  in  1833, 
when  he  removed  to  Texas. 

It  is  said  of  Daniel  Parker,  that  at  one  time 
in  his  earlier  career  he  applied  for  appointment 
as  missionary,  and  when  it  was  refused  him,  turn- 
ed against  mission  societies  and  missionary  ef- 
fort of  every  kind.  This  was  true  at  least  of  his 
coadjutor,  Wilson  Thompson.  Just  how  far  Park- 
er was  influenced  by  Taylor  cannot  be  known ;  but 
Wilson  Thompson,  his  coadjutor,  admits  to  being 
greatly  influenced  by  reading  Taylor's  pamph- 
let. Recent  mission  troubles  in  Texas  may  pos- 
sibly be  due  in  part  to  Parker's  labors  after 
reaching  that  state,  although  we  can  discover 
nothing  of  his  life  after  he  moved  to  Texas.  The 
Parkerite  heresy  has  not  yet  died  out,  for  the 
census  bulletin  for  1893  reports  to  the  member- 
ship of  this  sect  in  the  entire  country  at  9,932. 

The  third  and  greatest  opposer  of  the  mission 
system  was  Alexander  Campbell.  He  was  the  son 
of  Thomas  Campbell,  a  Presbyterian  clergyman. 
Alexander  was  born  in  Ireland  but  educated  at 
the  University  of  Glascow,  in  Scotland,  for  the 
Presbyterian  ministry.  The  date  of  his  arrival 
in  this  country  is  variously  given  between  1807 
and  1809.  September,  1809,  is  probably  the  cor- 
rect date.  In  1809  the  Christian  Association  at 
Washington,  Pennsylvania,  was  organized.  On 
the  12th  day  of  June,  1812,  Alexander  Campbell 


43 


and  wife  were  baptized  by  Rev.  Matthias  Luce, 
as  were  also  his  father,  mother  and  sister. 

All  these  arrived  at  their  convictions  on  the 
subject  of  baptism  separately  and  to  the  mutual 
surprice  of  each  other.  Campbell  was  received  by 
this  baptism  into  Brush  Run  Church,  which  next 
year,  1813,  presented  a  written  creed  to  Red  Stone 
Baptist  Association,  and  was  received  into  mem- 
bership with  that  body.  In  March,  1811,  Camp- 
bell married,  and  in  April  moved  to  Buffalo  (now 
Bethany),  Virginia.  In  1820  he  debated  with 
Walker  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  In  August, 
1823,  he  began  to  publish  a  small  religious  month- 
ly, called  "The  Christian  Baptist."  After  mak- 
ing an  extensive  tour  through  some  of  the  West- 
ern States  and  finding  the  anti-mission  leaven 
implanted  by  Parker  and  Taylor  already  at  work, 
he  became  much  more  bold  in  his  attacks  so  that 
Daniel  Parker  established  "The  Church  Advo- 
cate," a  periodical  similar  in  size,  form  and  aim 
of  "The  Christian  Baptist,"  for  the  purpose  of 
advocating  church  sovereignty  and  exclusiveness, 
in  opposition  to  benevolent  societies  in  the  West. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  this  Parker  and 
Campbell  made  common  cause. 

While  the  chief  root  of  Parker's  opposition 
lay  in  his  heresy,  Campbell's  lay  in  the  fact  that 
he  considered  himself  a  Reformer.  As  he  said 
in  his  preface,  I  would  do  no  good  to  convert 
heathens  to  a  form  of  Christianity  held  by  men 
who  themselves  needed  to  be  converted  to  New 
Testament  Christianity.  Reformers  have  never 
been  missionaries,  nor  the  reforming  ages  per- 


44 


iods  of  missionary  activity  in  the  church.  This 
was  true  of  the  Roman  church.  For  three  hun- 
dred years,  while  the  reformers  were  trying  by 
means  of  councils  to  cleanse  the  church  in  head 
and  members,  there  was  no  missionary  activity. 
Not  until  after  the  Reformation,  when  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  had  finally  put  a  quietus  on  the  re- 
form movements,  did  Roman  missionary  activity 
begin.  The  same  was  true  of  the  Protestant 
churches.  As  long  as  Europe  was  filled  with  the 
jangling  of  their  warring  creeds,  missionary  ef- 
fort, though  feebly  attempted  a  few  times,  mis- 
erably failed.  But  in  the  fullness  of  time  when 
religious  opinions  had  all  clarified  and  crystallized 
into  settled  creeds,  Cary  arose  to  set  the  Chris- 
tian world  on  fire  with  missionary  enthusiasm. 
Campbell,  then,  as  a  reformer,  could  not  readily 
be  a  missionary.  His  mistake  lay  in  supposing  the 
Baptists  needed  reformation.  What  they  needed 
was  cooperation  and  missionary  zeal.  This,  Camp- 
bell was  not  responsible  for  giving  them,  except 
as  Judas  was  responsible  for  our  redemption. 

We  have  then  the  curious  spectacle  of  the 
highest  antinomianism,  represented  by  Parker 
and  Taylor,  and  the  most  extreme  Arminianism, 
represented  by  Campbell,  combined  to  attack  the 
principles  of  missions.  The  one  side  claimed  it  to 
be  an  infringement  of  the  devine,  and  the  other 
of  church  sovereignty.  This  coalition  was  great- 
ly successful.  Dr.  Spencer  truly  says  of  Campbell, 
that  he  exercised  more  influence  over  the  Bap- 
tists of  Kentucky  than  of  any  other  State,  and 
that  while  "not  the  originator  of  opposition  to 


45 


missions  he  was  its  most  successful  advocate." 
It  is  not  our  purpose  to  follow  Mr.  Campbell  into 
all  the  doctrinal  and  credal  tergiversations  into 
which  his  reform  policy  led  him.  But  by  attacking 
and  attempting  to  change  the  very  plan  of  salva- 
tion itself,  the  only  doctrine  more  vital  than  that 
of  missions,  he  finally  succeeded  in  adding  an- 
other to  the  already  large  number  of  sects  in 
Christendom.  His  activity  in  this  line  was  so 
great  and  its  results  are  so  well  known  as  to  ob- 
scure his  responsibility  for  the  Hardshell  split. 
The  truth  is,  Alexander  Campbell  was  the  fath- 
er of  twins,  Hardshellism  and  Campbellism.  Hard- 
shellism  first  gave  indication  of  its  appearance, 
but  as  in  the  case  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  it  was  sup- 
planted in  the  womb  by  its  brother,  Campbellism. 
Hardshellism,  though  longer  in  taking  to  itself 
habitation  and  a  name,  was  the  first  of  the  two 
to  disturb  the  Baptist  denomination.  But  here, 
as  in  the  case  of  Parker,  many  followed  him  in 
his  opposition  to  missions,  who  did  not  join  him 
in  his  doctrinal  vagaries  and  who  were  left  behind 
to  vex  the  saints  when  the  believers  in  his  creed, 
as  set  forth  in  the  "Christian  Baptist"  and  "Mil- 
lenial  Harbinger,"  went  out  from  the  Baptists  to 
form  a  new  denomination.  The  denomination  he 
founded  has  found  it  necessary  in  the  struggle 
for  existence  to  discard  all  his  anti-missionary 
ideas,  and  to  use  all  the  methods  he  so  unspar- 
ingly burlesqued.  The  quotations  made  from  his 
writings  are  all  from  the  period  while  he  was 
still  a  Baptist,  as  his  influence  was  largely  dimin- 
ished among  them  after  his  secession.    But  not 


46 


until  the  last  Hardshell,  Gospel  Missioner  and 
Retrenching  Church  and  Association  has  sloughed 
off  from  the  Missionary  Baptists,  will  the  cure 
be  complete. 

Now,  just  a  word  about  the  rise  of  Anti-mis- 
sionism  in  our  State,  North  Carolina.  We  have 
shown  by  the  above  article  where  the  matter  ori- 
ginated, and  what  the  real  intent  of  it  was,  but  we 
have  not  shown  how  it  came  into  North  Carolina. 
This  we  can  do  by  giving  a  historical  sketch  writ- 
ten by  Dr.  T.  H.  Pritchard  while  he  was  president 
of  Wake  Forest  college.  He  was  an  honest  his- 
torian, and  had  so  much  experience  with  the  Bap- 
tist of  this  state,  and  in  fact,  with  those  of  the 
Middle  Atlantic  States,  that  he  knew  all  about 
the  different  changes  that  had  come  about  dur- 
ing the  colonial  and  succeeding  years.  This  ar- 
ticle we  quote  from  was  published  in  The  Bibli- 
cal Recorder  while  he  was  at  Wake  Forest.  Here 
is  the  statement: 

Not  Primitive  or  Old  School,  But  New  School,  or 
Anti-Missionary  Baptists 

"I  propose  to  show  that  the  terms  Old  School 
and  Primitive,  when  applied  to  that  class  of  Bap- 
tists who  oppose  Foreign  Missions,  Sunday 
Schools,  revivals  of  religion,  Bible  societies,  etc., 
are  misnomers,  and  that  the  real  Primitive  or 
Old  School  Baptists  are  the  Missionary  Baptists 
of  this  day.  This  is  a  question  of  fact,  not  of  opin- 
ion, and  I  shall  submit  testimony  drawn  from 
their  own  records  establishing  the  position.  The 
evidence  adduced  is  taken  from  the  "History  of 
the   Sandy   Creek   Association,"   written   by   Dr. 


47 


Geo.  W.  Purefoy,  and  I  shall  sometimes  use  his 
language  and  sometimes  my  own,  quoting  the 
names  of  authors,  with  chapter  and  verse,  that 
there  may  be  no  question  as  to  the  authenticity 
of  the  testimony  presented.  Taking  it  for  granted 
that  the  Christians  of  the  apostolic  age  were  Bap- 
tists, which  I  assuredly  believe,  two  things  are 
clear:  First,  that  God  called  and  directed  men  to 
preach  to  the  heathen  (Acts  xiii:2;  Gal.  i:15) ; 
and,  second,  that  funds  were  raised  by  the 
churches  and  paid  as  "wages"  to  the  missionaries 
(2  Cor.  xi:7,8,9).  The  original  and  Primitive  Bap- 
tists were,  therefore,  Missionary  Baptists,  like 
those  of  the  present  day,  who  sent  men  called  of 
God  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen  and  col- 
lect funds  which  are  paid  as  the  wages  of  the 
missionaries. 

I  shall  now  prove  from  unquestionable  his- 
torical facts  that  the  Associations  which  are  now 
anti-missionary  were  in  favor  of  foreign  missions 
up  to  the  years  1826-27-30,  and  have  no  claim  to 
the  title  of  the  Old  School  Baptists. 

I  will  begin  with  the  Baltimore  Association, 
perhaps  the  most  famous  body  of  this  modern  sect 
in  the  United  States.  Their  minutes  for  1814  con- 
tain the  following  record :  "Received  a  correspond- 
ing letter  from  Bro.  Rice,  one  of  our  missionary 
brethren,  on  the  subject  of  encouraging  mission- 
ary societies."  This  Bro.  Rice  was  Luther  Rice, 
who  was  then  just  from  Burmah,  whither  he  had 
gone  as  a  missionary  with  Adoniran  Judson. 

In  1816,  these  minutes,  in  their  circular  let- 
ter, say:    "The  many  revivals  of  religion  which 


48 


are  witnessed  in  various  parts  of  the  country — 
the  multiplication  of  Bible  societies,  Missionary 
societies,  and  Sunday  schools,  both  in  our  own 
and  foreign  countries — are  viewed  by  us  as  show- 
ing indications  of  the  near  approach  of  that  day 
when  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  shall  cover  the 
earth." 

The  minutes  of  the  same  year  state  that  "the 
Standing  Clerk  was  instructed  to  supply  the  Cor- 
responding Secretary  of  the  Foreign  Mission 
Board  with  a  copy  of  our  minutes  annually." 

In  1817,  "Bro.  Luther  Rice  presented  himself 
as  the  messenger  of  the  Baptist  Board  of  For- 
eign Missions,  and  was  cordially  received." 

Elder  James  Osborne  was  a  member  of  this 
body  which  cordially  received  a  Foreign  Mission- 
ary, and  at  this  very  session  was  appointed  a 
Home  Missionary.  This  man  Osborne,  who  was 
a  leader  in  the  Anti-mission  secession,  both  in 
Maryland  and  North  Carolina,  I  remember  to 
have  seen  in  Charlotte  when  I  was  a  small  boy. 
He  was  a  handsome,  dressy  man,  full  of  conceit, 
and  very  fond  of  talking  of  himself  and  of  selling 
his  own  books. 

From  the  same  authentic  source,  the  minutes 
of  the  Baltimore  Association,  we  learn  that  in 
1828  they  called  themselves  "Regular  Baptists," 
just  as  we  do  now.  The  same  year  they  expressed 
their  joy  at  the  intelligence  of  the  conversion  of 
the  heathen,  and  as  late  as  1827  the  association 
expressed  by  formal  resolutions  their  sorrow  at 
the  death  of  Mrs.  Ann  H.  Judson,  and  their  great 
interest  in  the  mission  with  which  she  was  con- 


49 


nected,  and  it  was  not  till  1836,  when  the  associa- 
tion met  with  the  Black  Rock  Church,  and  then  by 
a  vote  of  sixteen  to  nine,  that  fellowship  was 
withdrawn  from  churches  favoring  foreign  mis- 
sions, Sunday  schools,  etc. 

To  come  back  now  to  North  Carolina,  I  can 
prove  that  the  Kehukee  and  Country  Line  Asso- 
ciations, two  of  the  most  influential  of  the  Anti- 
mission  party,  were  once  missionary  bodies.  In 
Burkett  &  Read's  History  of  the  Kehukee  Asso- 
ciation it  is  stated  on  page  139  that  in  1794,  a  spe- 
cial day  was  appointed  to  pray  God  for  a  revival 
of  religion,  and  on  page  145,  that  it  was  the  cus- 
tom of  the  ministers  of  that  date  to  invite  peni- 
tents to  come  forward  and  kneel  down  to  be  pray- 
ed for,  just  as  we  do  in  our  revival  meetings  now. 

In  Bigg's  History,  Kehukee  Association,  page 
162,  it  appears  that  this  Association  appointed 
delegates  to  meet  at  Cashie  Church,  Bertie  coun- 
ty ,in  June,  1805,  with  delegates  from  Virginia, 
Portsmouth,  and  Neuse  Associations,  and  at  this 
meeting  arrangements  were  made  to  collect  mon- 
ey for  missionary  purposes.  Thus  it  appears  that 
the  Kehukee  was  not  only  in  fellowship  with  the 
Portsmouth  and  other  Missionary  Baptist  As- 
sociations, but  that  the  very  first  missionary  so- 
ciety ever  organized  in  the  State  was  in  the 
bounds  of  this  body. 

In  1812,  this  association  sent  $3 ;  in  1813,  $5 ; 
and  in  1814,  $5,  to  the  general  meeting  of  cor- 
respondence of  North  Carolina,  which  was  an  or- 
ganization of  the  Missionary  Baptist. 

The  same  history  of  the  Association  shows 


50 


that  in  1817,  it  was  in  correspondence  with  the 
General  Convention  of  the  Baptists,  which  met 
that  year  in  Philadelphia,  and  which  was  support- 
ing Judson  and  other  foreign  missionaries,  and 
it  was  not  till  1827  that  this  Association  took  a 
decided  anti-missionary  ground. 

The  evidence  to  show  that  the  Country  Line 
Association  was  a  missionary  body  up  to  the  year 
1832,  is  perfectly  overwhelming.  Its  minutes 
show  that  in  1816,  '17  and  '18,  that  body  sent  dele- 
gates to  the  general  meeting  of  correspondence, 
and  in  1816  Elder  Geo.  Roberts,  one  of  the  min- 
isters of  this  Association,  was  the  Moderator  of 
the  general  meeting  of  correspondence  of  which 
Robert  T.  Daniel  was  the  agent,  and  which  devel- 
oped into  the  North  Carolina  Baptist  State  Con- 
vention. In  1818  this  association  sent  $13.45  to 
the  North  Carolina  Missionary  Society  by  the 
hands  of  Bro.  John  Campbell. 

And  what  is  still  more  remarkable,  there  was 
a  very  prosperous  Woman's  Mission  Society  in 
this  Association,  the  minutes  of  which,  kept  by 
John  Campbell,  show  that  the  "Hyco  Female  Cent 
Society"  was  formed  at  Tynch's  Creek  meeting 
house,  in  Caswell  county,  in  October,  1816;  in 
March,  1817,  it  met  at  Bush  Arbor  meeting- 
house; in  March  1818,  it  met  at  the  same  place; 
in  1819  at  Grave's  meeting-house,  and  the  fifth 
annual  meeting  was  held  in  September,  1820,  at 
Arbor.  All  of  these  churches  are  not  anti-mission, 
but  were  then  missionary  bodies,  and  the  persons 
who  preached  the  annual  sermons — R.  Dishong, 
J.  Landus,  Barzillar  Graves,  Abner  W.  Clopton, 


51 


and  S.  Chandler — were  all  Missionary  Baptist 
ministers. 

In  1832,  the  Country  Line  Association  was  in 
regular  correspondence  with  the  Flat  river  and 
Sandy  Creek  Associations,  both  of  which  were 
then  and  still  are,  missionary  bodies. 

In  1832  James  Osborne,  of  Baltimore,  visited 
this  Association,  and  under  his  influence  it  was 
induced  to  withdraw  fellowship  from  the  Mission- 
ary Baptists  of  the  State. 

Now  from  this  brief  statement  of  unvarnished 
facts  we  see  that  the  Missionary  Baptists  are  just 
where  the  apostles  were  and  where  all  of  the  name 
were  in  1827-28,  when  a  new  sect  arose,  calling 
themselves,  according  to  Elder  Bennett's  Review, 
page  8,  at  first  the  Reformed  Baptists  in  North 
Carolina,  and  then  the  Old  Baptists,  the  Old  Sort 
of  Baptists,  Baptists  of  the  Old  Stamp,  and  fin- 
ally adopted  the  name  of  the  Primitive  Baptists. 

There  are  many  things  about  these  brethren 
which  I  like  and  I  would  not  needlessly  call  them 
by  an  offensive  name,  but  I  can  not  style  them 
either  Old  School  or  Primitive  Baptists,  for  in 
so  doing  I  should  falsify  the  facts  of  history  and 
acknowledge  that  I  and  my  brethren  have  de- 
parted from  the  faith  of  the  apostles  and  Baptist 
fathers.  In  no  invidious  sense,  therefore,  but 
from  necessity,  I  am  obliged  to  call  them  New 
School  or  Anti-missionary  Baptists." 

The  short  statement  of  the  whole  matter  is 
this: 

1.  The  Regular  Baptists  of  Europe  were  Mis- 
sionary Baptists. 


52 


2.  The  first  Baptists  of  England  were  Mis- 
sionary Baptists. 

3.  The  first  association  ever  formed  in  Eng- 
land was  a  Missionary  Baptist  Association. 

4.  The  first  Baptist  Church  in  America,  at 
Newport,  R.  I.,  was  a  Missionary  Baptist  Church. 

5.  The  first  Baptist  Association  ever  organiz- 
ed in  America,  the  Philadelphia,  which  included 
all  known  Baptist  churches,  was  a  Missionary 
Baptist  Association,  and  annually  raised  money 
for  ministerial  education  and  missionary  opera- 
tions. That  Association  has  ever  been  a  mis- 
sionary body. 

6.  The  first  Association  that  was  organized 
in  New  England,  the  Warren  Association,  which 
embraced  all  the  Baptist  Churches  in  New  Eng- 
land, was  a  missionary  body,  and  is  to  this  day. 

7.  The  first  Baptist  Association  ever  formed 
in  Virginia  was  a  Missionary  Baptist  Association. 

8.  The  first  Association  organized  in  North 
Carolina,  in  South  Carolina,  in  Georgia,  in  Ten- 
nessee, and  in  every  Southern  State,  were  Mis- 
sionary Baptist  Associations. 

9.  All  the  fathers,  founders,  and  originators 
of  this  new  sect,  who  claim  the  name  of  Primitive 
Baptists,  once  belonged  to  Missionary  Baptist 
churches,  and  co-operated  in  the  missionary  work, 
and  some  of  them,  like  James  Osborne,  the  ori- 
ginator of  anti-missionism  in  Maryland  and  North 
Carolina,  were  actually  missionaries  of  the 
boards.  Now  this  is  the  unenviable  position  in 
which  the  "Anti-missionaries"  have  placed  them- 
selves.   So  far  as  I  can  learn,  they  deny  that 


53 


Missionary  Baptist  churches  are  churches  of 
Christ,  or  that  they  can,  or  ever  could,  administer 
Gospel  ordinances.  Whence,  then,  did  the  Anti- 
missionaries  get  their  baptisms  and  ordinations  ?" 
We  have  written  at  length  on  this  subject, 
but  is  it  not  necessary  since  so  many  are  not  in- 
formed on  this  line?  We  have  done  this  to  help 
our  people  to  know  the  facts  in  the  case.  We 
have  not  done  this  to  provoke  argument  by  any 
means,  and  we  hope  that  those  who  read  these 
lines  may  investigate  this  question  as  fully  as 
they  need  to,  so  that  they  may  come  to  an  honest 
conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  and  not  live  and 
die  under  a  sad  misunderstanding. 


54 


WHAT  THE  BAPTIST  HAVE  BEEN  CALLED 

THROUGH  ALL  THE  AGES 

From  A.  D.  33--A.  D.  1924 


Baptist  have  never  named  themselves  in  any 
way.  They  have  left  that  part  of  the  matter  for 
other  people  and  they  have  always  had  plenty  of 
folks  more  than  ready  to  name  them.  Of  course 
the  names  have  always  been  given  them  because 
of  some  characteristics  they  possessed.  Some- 
times they  named  them  for  a  man,  but  only  be- 
cause he  was  the  leader  and  not  because  he  was 
the  originator  of  their  creed,  if  they  have  one. 
They  had  different  names  in  different  countries, 
but  all  of  them  had  the  same  doctrine.  The  name 
did  not  make  a  difference  in  them  in  any  way. 
Sometimes  they  were  named  for  some  fanatical 
sect  that  happened  to  be  in  force  and  also  to  be 
diesipsed.  This  they  tried  to  do  to  disgrace  the 
Baptist,  but  they  have  lived  through  all  of  the 
ages  since  Jesus  was  here,  and  they  are  going 
to  continue  to  live  as  long  as  time  lasts  if  the 
Bible  is  not  destroyed.  Their  life  is  depending  on 
the  truth  as  it  is  preached.  If  the  gospel  is  not 
preached,  the  Baptist  suffer  greatly.  They  live 
as  the  gospel  lives. 

Let  us  notice  the  names  by  which  they  have 
been  known  in  all  ages  of  the  Christian  era.  They 
were  first  called  "Disciples."  While  the  gospel 
was  being  preached  around  Jerusalem,  they  were 
called  nothing  else,  but  when  they  were  dispersed 


55 


to  Syria  and  the  church  of  Antioch  was  organized, 
they  were  called  "Christian"  because  they  fol- 
lowed so  closely  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  They  were  called  Christian  for  the  first 
century,  but  when  they  begun  to  scatter  to  other 
nations  outside  of  Palestine  they  had  other  names 
given  them.  During  the  second  century  they  were 
called  Montanist  and  in  some  sections  they  were 
called  Turtullianist  after  Tertullian  who  held  to 
Baptist  views  and  preached  Baptist  doctrines. 
During  the  third  century  they  were  called  Nova- 
tionist.  These  men  came  into  existence  during 
the  time  that  Constantine  the  Great  was  reorgan- 
izing the  forces  of  Rome,  and  as  he  said,  was 
putting  Christianity  on  its  feet,  but  he  was  only 
making  ready  for  the  coming  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic church  with  all  of  its  deceptive  doctrines  and 
heresies.  It  made  no  difference  how  formal  and 
lifeless  his  reign  was,  there  was  a  people  there 
to  stand  up  for  the  truths  of  God  as  they  are 
taught  in  the  New  Testament  scriptures.  They 
were  called  Novationist  in  derision.  Before  they 
had  died  out  another  name  was  given  them.  This 
time  they  were  named  for  a  man  Donatus,  hence 
they  were  called  Donatist.  These  men  lived  as  they 
preached.  They  were  not  learned  but  they  were 
consecrated.  Their  lives  made  a  most  wonderful 
impression  on  the  communities  in  which  they 
lived.  This  name  lasted  until  the  sixth  century. 
They  were  succeeded  by  the  Numidians  and  the 
Paulicans.  It  is  very  easy  to  see  why  they  were 
called  Paulicans.  They  adhered  so  closely  to  the 
teachings  of  Paul  that  they  imbibed  his  spirit  and 

56 


showed  his  fervor  for  the  gospel  to  the  extent  that 
it  was  noticeable.  They  bore  this  name  until  the 
tenth  century.  At  this  time  they  were  called  the 
Albigenses.  They  were  called  this  at  Albiga, 
France.  They  sprung  up  all  of  a  sudden  in  France 
at  this  town,  and  because  they  were  located  there, 
they  called  them  Albigenses.  This  name  went 
with  them  through  the  latter  part  of  the  tenth 
century  and  on  until  the  eleventh  century.  Dur- 
ing the  latter  part  of  the  eleventh  and  the  twelfth 
centuries  they  were  called  Paternines.  Then  they 
were  caller  Petrobrussians ;  from  this  they  went 
to  Arnoldist.  Then  they  were  called  Waldensians, 
not  Waldensians  like  we  have  them  in  North  Car- 
olina, but  Waldensians  who  practiced  the  very 
things  the  Baptists  practice  today.  They  may  not 
have  been  like  us  in  every  way,  but  there  was  no 
noticeable  difference.  Later  they  were  called  Ana- 
baptist because  they  baptized  those  who  had  been 
sprinkled  by  pedobaptist.  The  same  thing  they  are 
doing  every  Sunday  at  this  time.  The  Germans  did 
not  like  the  sect  and  tried  to  exterminate  them  in 
every  way  they  could.  In  some  sections  there  was 
a  fanatical  sect  known  by  the  same  name  but  not 
the  original  Baptist.  They  say  that  there  were 
more  than  forty  sects  in  England  known  by  this 
name.  Some  of  them  did  not  immerse,  but  believed 
in  believers  baptism  and  would  resprinkle  those 
who  had  been  sprinkled  in  infancy.  This  put  them 
in  the  class  to  be  called  Anabaptist,  but  they  were 
not  really  such.  This  name  followed  them  far  into 
the  seventeenth  century.  Later  on  the  word  Ana 
was  left  off  and  they  were  called  simply  Baptist, 


57 


meaning  those  who  immersed. 

To  this  name  many  prefixes  have  been  placed, 
but  they  remain  the  same  old  time  New  Testa- 
ment Christians  they  were  in  the  first  century. 
They  have  not  lived  the  truth  as  they  have  believ- 
ed it,  but  they  are  the  same  in  practice  they  have 
always  been  and  the  gates  of  hell  have  not  pre- 
vailed against  them.  They  have  made  their  im- 
press upon  the  world  whereever  they  have  ex- 
isted, and  as  long  as  time  last  they  are  going  to 
preach  the  truth  in  such  an  uncompromising  way 
that  they  may  have  half  a  dozen  other  names 
before  He  comes. 

The  pedobaptist  and  other  denominations 
sprung  up  in  different  sections  of  our  country  at 
the  following  times : 

Roman  Catholocism  A.  D.  607,  Feb.  19. 

The  Christianity  of  these  terrible  times  met 
a  supreme  test,  the  wrecks  and  deformities  of 
which,  she,  in  many  respects,  has  never  sur- 
vived. In  a  despairing  effort  to  hold  some  power 
over  these  heathen  invaders,  the  Christianity  of 
the  times  assumed  to  play  upon  the  superstitions 
of  the  uncivilized  hordes.  This  was  successfully 
accomplished  in  many  ways,  principally  by  claim- 
in  great  spiritual  powers  for  the  bishops,  by  im- 
posing severe  penalties  upon  the  violators  of 
Christian  precepts,  and  by  overdrawing  the  un- 
cultured mind  with  mysterious  ceremonies  and 
gilded  pageantry.  It  was  this  misguided  effort 
to  convert  the  barbarians  that  gave  rise  in  those 
awful  days  to  the  fanaticism  which  finally 
stretched  its  pall  over  the  middle  ages  and  prosti- 


tuted  the  simplicity  of  Christianity  into  a  mighty 
system  of  sacerdotalism  and  ritualism. 

Ridpath  says,  on  page  520,  Vol.  4,  in  speaking 
of  the  times  of  Charlemange:  "The  Holy  See  at 
this  time  made  the  discovery  that  the  presenta- 
tion of  moral  truth  and  obligation  to  the  barbar- 
ian imagination  was  less  effective  than  splendid 
shows  and  gilded  ceremonies.  She,  therefore, 
adopted  pageant  instead  of  moral  expostulation 
and  converted  the  barbarians  with  spectacels." 
It  was  through  these  means  and  under  conditions, 
that  the  Church  was  able  to  gradually  assume 
her  control,  until  she  gripped  and  subdued  the 
political  as  well  as  the  religious  powers  of  the 
people. 

The  actual  establishment  of  the  Roman  Pa- 
pacy was  accomplished  by  Gregory  the  Great,  in 
the  year  A.  D.  590.  On  page  418,  Vol.  4,  Rid- 
path says,  "This  epoch  in  history  should  not  be 
passed  over  without  reference  to  the  rapid  growth 
of  the  Papal  church,  in  the  close  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury and  the  beginning  of  the  seventh.  Most 
of  all  by  Gregory  the  Great,  whose  pontificate  ex- 
tended from  590  to  604,  was  the  supremacy  of 
the  Apostolic  See  asserted  and  maintained.  Un- 
der the  triple  title  of  Bishop,  of  Rome,  Primate 
of  Italy,  and  Apostle  of  the  West,  he  gradually 
by  gentle  insinuation  or  bold  assertion,  as  best 
suited  the  circumstance,  elevated  the  Episcopacy 
of  Rome  into  a  genuine  papacy  of  the  Church.  He 
succeeded  in  bringing  the  Arians  of  Italy  and 
Spain  into  the  Catholic  fold,  and  thus  assured  the 
solidarity  of  the  Western  Ecclesia."    From  this 


59 


time  forth  to  the  Reformation,  a  period  of  quite 
nine  hundred  years,  the  Roman  papacy  held  her 
despotic  sway  over  the  map  of  Europe.  She  seized 
the  sceptre  of  state  and  made  the  kings  of  earth 
her  servants.  She  grew  rich  with  wealth  and  be- 
came drunk  with  power.  She  committed  fornica- 
tion with  kings,  and  made  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth  drunk  with  her  whoredoms.  She  was 
"drunken  with  the  blood  of  the  saints,  and  with 
the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus."  Ignorance, 
lust  and  fanaticism  ran  riot  under  her  dominion. 
Her  history  is  written  in  fire  and  blood,  and  is 
stamped  with  the  curse  of  God.  The  historian 
calls  these  centuries  of  papal  dominion  the  "Dark 
ages."  The  cross  of  Jesus  was  lost  to  the  gaze 
of  a  despairing  world,  while  the  "deceiver  of  na- 
tions" glutted  herself  in  fatness.  At  her  hands 
the  true  followers  of  Jesus  suffered  "trials  of 
cruel  mockings  and  scourgings,  yea  moreover  of 
bonds  and  imprisonments ;  they  were  stoned,  they 
were  sawn  asunder,  were  tempted,  were  slain  with 
the  sword;  they  wandered  about  in  sheepskins 
and  goatskins ;  being  destitute,  afflicted,  torment- 
ed ;  of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy." 

However,  the  light  of  modern  civilization 
broke  with  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. With  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation,  we  have 
the  rise  of  modern  denominationalism.  This 
period  seems  to  have  been  God's  time  to  wake 
the  nations  out  of  sleep.  The  intellectual,  politi- 
cal and  religious  mind  of  the  world  was  ready  for 
a  new  order  of  things,  and  the  people  were  pre- 
pared to  welcome  any  leaders  who  could  teach 


60 


them  to  walk  in  new  paths."  This  quotation  has 
been  given  to  get  a  back  ground  for  the  beginning 
of  denominations.  The  Catholics  are  the  mother 
of  nearly  all  of  the  protestant  denominations — 
please  remember  that  the  Baptist  denomination 
is  not  protestant — especially  all  those  that  prac- 
tice infant  sprinkling  and  some  that  do  not.  Some 
of  those  that  came  out  of  the  Catholic  church  are 
strict  immersionist.  Such  is  the  case  with  the 
Greek  Catholic  church  and  several  other  denomi- 
nations we  will  not  name  at  this  time.  The  Catho- 
lic church  did  not  originate  in  a  day  as  some  of 
the  protestant  denominations.  It  was  the  devel- 
opment of  many  ages.  It  really  began  with  the 
reign  of  Constantine  the  Great  and  was  not  per- 
fected until  1870  when  the  pope  was  declared 
infallible.  We  cannot  give  a  detailed  account  of 
the  rise  of  Catholicism  here,  but  hope  to  in  an- 
other little  book  we  have  been  working  on  for 
some  time. 

The  next  denominations  we  wish  to  mention 
is  that  of  the  Moravians  which  originated  in  1457. 
This  movement  did  not  figure  very  prominently, 
but  when  Martin  Luther  appeared  on  the  stage 
of  action  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, things  took  a  turn  and  the  Lutheran  church 
was  organized  out  of  the  German  Catholics  and 
in  direct  opposition  to  them.  This  movement  cul- 
minated in  the  Diet  of  Worms  which  indorsed  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  thus  giving  origin  to  the 
Lutheran  church.  This  was  June,  1530. 

Selsus  E.  Tull  in  his  little  booklet  entitled 
"Denominationalism  Put  to  the  Test"  has  this  to 


61 


say  about  this  movement :  "All  great  movements 
converge  their  forces  into  the  personality  of  some 
great  man.  Martin  Luther,  a  Catholic  monk, 
whose  life  spanned  the  years  from  1483  to  1546, 
became  the  religious  leader  of  the  new  day.  Luth- 
er saw  the  general  catholic  degeneracy  and  disso- 
lution, and  organized  a  movement  for  reform.  He 
had  no  avowed  intention  to  break  away  from  the 
Church;  his  idea  was  simply  to  reform  the  prac- 
tices of  the  Church.  His  attacks  upon  the  rule 
of  the  Pope,  and  his  defiance  of  the  Pope's  edicts 
brought  him  under  the  anathema  of  excommuni- 
cation. This  situation  forced  Luther  and  his  fol- 
lowers into  a  separate  organization  in  the  year 
1520,"  but  the  real  organization  of  the  Lutheran 
church  was  not  perfected  until  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession was  adopted  at  the  Diet  of  Worms  in  1530. 

The  next  religious  movement  was  in  England 
under  the  leadership  of  Henry  VII.  We  give  the 
following  from  "Denominationalism  Put  to  the 
Test."  These  facts  are  published  in  the  very  best 
histories  we  have,  and  as  you  read  them  do  not 
think  for  one  minute  that  we  originated  them. 
These  are  established  historical  facts: 

"In  1509  Henry  the  Eighth  was  crowned  King 
of  England  at  the  age  of  twelve  years.  He  was 
married  the  same  year  to  Catherine  of  Aragon, 
daughter  of  Ferdinand,  and  widow  of  his  brother 
Arthur.  Twenty  years  later  than  this,  when 
Henry  came  to  exercise  his  own  prerogative  in 
personal  matters,  he  decided  to  divorce  Catherine 
and  to  marry  Anne  Boleyn,  an  English  girl,  who 
had  been  reared  at  the  court  of  Charles  the  Fifth 


62 


of  France.  This  question  of  Henry's  divorce  rais- 
ed a  great  discussion  in  the  church,  which  finally 
was  carried  to  the  Pope  of  Rome  for  settlement. 
The  Pope  decided  against  Henry.  Realizing  the 
political  affairs,  Henry  thereupon  took  matters 
in  his  own  hands  and  proceeded  to  put  away 
Catherine  and  to  marry  Anne,  notwithstanding 
the  Pope's  pronounced  interdiction.  This  defiance 
of  the  Pope  caused  Henry's  excommunication 
from  the  Catholic  Church  by  Pope  Clement  the 
Seventh,  1534.  Accepting  the  situation  as  an 
opportunity  to  rid  himself  completely  of  all  poli- 
tical alliances  with  the  Pope,  Henry  immediately 
convened  his  Parliament,  and  on  November  23rd, 
of  the  same  year,  1534,  caused  his  parliament  to 
pass  an  act  known  as  "The  Act  of  Supremacy," 
which  declared  Henry  the  Eighth  to  be  "the  Pro- 
tector and  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  and 
Clergy  of  England."  Thus  it  was  that  on  the  23rd 
day  of  November,  1534,  "The  Church  of  England" 
was  set  up,  with  the  profligate,  adulterous,  mur- 
derous Henry  as  its  founder  and  head.  Brought 
into  existence  in  a  day  by  the  power  of  a  political 
fiat,  the  Episcopalian  Church  started  on  its  car- 
eer as  a  "Christian"  denomination. 

The  next  denomination  to  come  into  existence 
was  the  Presbyterians.  The  same  little  book  we 
have  been  quoting  has  the  following  to  say  about 
the  origin  of  the  Presbyterians:  "The  success  of 
Luther's  Protestantism  on  the  continent  gave 
liberty  for  other  like  movements.  John  Calvin, 
who  was  born  in  the  year  1509,  the  same  year 
that  Henry  the  Eighth  was  crowned  King  of  Eng- 


63 


land,  who  was  educated  for  a  Catholic  monk, 
joined  hands  with  Luther  and  aided  the  Reforma- 
tion. In  some  respects,  Calvin's  ideas  of  both  doc- 
trine and  policy  were  different  from  those  of 
Luther.  For  this  reason,  Calvin's  reform  fell  into 
distinct  channels  and  crystallized  into  an  inde- 
pendent organization,  and  because  of  their  form 
of  church  government,  Calvinists  became  known 
as  Presbyterians.  The  Presbyterian  Church  be- 
gan its  separate  denominational  existence  in  the 
year  1536." 

Thus  begun  the  leading  denominations  of  the 
world  and  all  of  the  others  have  come  out  of  these. 
They  came  into  existence  as  follows:  Dutch  Re- 
form 1619,  German  Reform  1563,  Adventist  1671, 
Six  Principal  Baptist  17th  century,  German  Bap- 
tist 1708,  German  Seventh  Day  Baptist  1728, 
Dunkards  1708,  Methodist  1729,  Universalist 
1779,  Free  Will  Baptist  1780,  Methodist  Protest- 
ant 1830,  Associate  Reform  Presbyterians  1782, 
Cumberland  Presbyterians  1810,  Christians 
(Campbellites)  1829,  Christians  (O'Kellyites) 
1739,  Mormons  1830,  Congregationalist  1586, 
Primitive  Baptist  (Hardshell)  1832,  Quakers  17th 
century,  Greek  Catholic  1054,  Seventh  Day  Bap- 
tist 1671.  No  man  can  give  a  date  for  the  origin  of 
the  Baptist  denomination  as  the  above.  They  begun 
while  Jesus  was  on  earth  and  under  his  leadership. 

Reader,  lay  down  predjudice  and  study  de- 
nominational history  long  enough  to  get  all  of 
this  important  data  straightened  out  in  your 
mind.  More  will  be  said  about  this  matter  in  the 
last  chapter  of  this  little  book. 


64 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM 

Let  us  notice  the  following  Scriptures  to  be- 
gin with: 

"The  baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it,  from 
heaven  or  of  men?"  Matt.  21:25. 

"Beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John."  Acts 
1:22. 

"One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  Eph.  4:5. 

"And  I  knew  him  not :  but  he  that  sent  me  to 
baptize  in  water,  the  same  said  unto  me."  R.  V. 
John  1 :33. 

"In  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist,  preach- 
ing in  the  wilderness  of  Judea,  and  saying,  Re- 
pent ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand. 
*  *  *  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all 
Judea,  and  all  the  region  around  about  Jordan,  and 
were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their 
sins."  Matt.  3:2,  5,  6. 

"Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan 
unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him.  But  John  for- 
bade him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of 
thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me?  And  Jesus  an- 
swering said  unto  him.  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now; 
for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness. 
Then  he  suffered  him.  And  Jesus,  when  he  was 
baptized  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water, 
and  lo,  the  heavens  were  opened  unto  him,  and 
he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God  descending  like  a  dove, 
and  lighting  upon  him :  and  lo  a  voice  from  heaven 
saying,  this  is  by  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased."  Matt.  3:13-17. 


65 


We  can  clearly  see  by  the  above  Scriptures 
that  baptism  began  with  John.  No  one  baptized 
before  him.  I  know  that  some  try  to  claim  that 
there  was  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  before  him, 
but  it  can  not  be  proven.  It  is  only  an  assertion 
and  not  a  historical  fact.  Now,  since  we  are  to 
look  into  this  question  very  carefully,  let  us  notice 
the  following : 

1.  Baptism  originated  with  John. 

2.  John  was  sent  from  God. 

3.  Then  John  was  God's  agent. 

4.  John  was  a  God-commissioned  man,  sent 
to  baptise. 

5.  John's  Baptism  then  was  Christian  Bap- 
tism. 

(a)  It  belonged  to  the  Christian  dispensation. 

(b)  The  New  Testament  begins  with  John's 
ministry. 

(c)  John  was  sent  directly  from  God.  John  1 :6. 
John  1 :33. 

(e)  John  baptized  all  the  members  of  the 
church  Christ  organized.  Acts  1:22. 

(f)  The  Apostles  recognized  John's  baptism. 

(g)  There  is  not  the  slightest  intimation  that 
any  of  John's  disciples  were  re-baptized  after 
they  became  disciples  of  Christ. 

(h)  No  one  was  eligible  to  the  office  of  an 
apostle  but  those  that  were  baptized  by  John. 
Acts  1 :22. 

(i)  Christ  submitted  to  John's  baptism,  thus 
endorsing  it. 

Now,  will  we  not  have  to  conclude  that  John's 
baptism  was  Christian  baptism?    I  do  not  see 

66 


what  more  it  would  take  to  make  it  Christian, 
do  you? 

6.  The  next  question  before  us  is,  Was  He  im- 
mersed or  Sprinkled? 

We  say  that  he  was  immersed.  That  nothing 
but  immersion  would  suit  the  purpose  Christ  had 
in  baptism. 

Some  want  to  say  that  his  baptism  does  not 
mean  anything  to  us,  and  that  it  was  not  an  ex- 
ample for  us.  They  claim  that  this  was  simply 
the  anointing  of  him  into  the  priesthood.  Now, 
can  that  be  true?  Was  he  a  priest  while  here. 
Could  anyone  be  a  priest  but  a  Levite?  Was  he 
not  out  of  the  regular  order?  He  certainly  did 
not  come  to  originate  a  new  order  of  priests.  We 
say  that  he  was  not,  and  we  say  that  if  he  was 
continuing  the  old  dispensation,  he  fell  dead  in 
the  Jordan.  Num.  3:10. 

We  say  emphatically  that  he  was  not  sprinkled 
but  immersed. 

Let  us  now  see  what  Christian  baptism  is : 

1.  It  must  be  of  divine  origin,  divine  import, 
and  divine  significance. 

2.  It  must  be  an  act  and  not  a  mode. 

Let  us  lay  down  this  hypothesis:  Christian 
baptism  is  the  immersion  of  a  believer  in  water 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

And  for  it  to  be  valid  baptism,  four  things 
are  necessary. 

1.  A  scriptural  administrator. 

(a)  He  must  be  a  twice  born  man.  No  one 
can  administer  the  ordinance  as  God  intended  it 


67 


without  knowing  its  deeper  meaning. 

(b)  He  must  be  a  Scripturally  baptized  man. 
If  the  administrator  cannot  stand  flat-footed  on 
the  twentieth  century  and  look  into  the  Jordan,  he 
is  not  a  legal  administrator.  We  must  have  a 
good  chain  of  title  or  we  cannot  transmit  the  ordi- 
nance. He  who  has  no  title  can  make  no  title  to 
anyone  else.  There  is  quite  a  difference  between 
a  deed  made  by  a  lawful  grantor  and  an  unlawful 
one.  If  a  man  cannot  trace  hs  baptism  to  that 
of  John  and  Christ,  he  most  assuredly  is  not  a 
legal  administrator.  I  cannot  transmit  a  thing 
that  I  do  not  have  a  legal  right  to  myself.  Some 
say  they  will  immerse  you  if  you  desire  it.  Now, 
we  wish  to  say  this  about  such  baptism.  It  is 
not  only  unscriptural,  but  it  is  sinful.  Whatso- 
ever is  not  of  faith  is  sin,  says  the  Book  and 
for  one  to  administer  an  ordinance  he  does  not 
believe  in,  and  besides  argues  against  and  ridi- 
cules is  very  sinful.  Can  a  man  be  consistent  who 
does  such  things?  Can  a  man  be  honest  and  do 
such  a  thing?  We  think  not.  We  must  conclude 
that  a  man  must  be  scripturally  baptized  to  be 
a  propert  administrator. 

(c)  He  must  be  a  scripturally  ordained  man. 
This  cannot  be  done  without  the  authority  of  a 
New  Testament  church,  and  of  course  anything 
originated  this  side  of  His  ministry  is  not  in  it, 
for  it  can  lay  no  claim  to  divine  origin.  That 
church  that  cannot  trace  its  origin  to  Christ  is 
too  young  for  me. 

(d)  He  must  be  a  God-commissioned  man. 
"How  can  they  preach  except  they  be  sent  ?"  The 

68 


first  administrator  was  a  God-commissioned  man 
and  every  one  since  that  time  has  had  to  be  the 
same  to  administer  scriptural  baptism. 

(e)  He  must  be  in  fellowship  with  a  New  Tes- 
tament church.  He  may  be  legally  baptized  and 
still  not  be  a  legal  administrator,  because  bap- 
tism must  be  administered  under  the  authority 
of  a  church.  The  church  is  the  custodian  of  the 
ordinances,  and  she  must  say  to  whom  it  must 
be  administered,  and  who  shall  administer  it. 

2.  There  must  be  a  scriptural  candidate. 

The  candidate  has  much  to  do  with  the  ordi- 
nance. We  differ  very  widely  from  our  pedobap- 
tist  brethren  on  this  important  point.  They  con- 
tend that  children  are  eligible  to  the  ordinance, 
but  we  contend  that  they  are  not.  Children  were 
not  baptized  in  the  days  of  our  Master  and  can- 
not be  now,  because  they  are  not  believers. 

(a)  The  candidate  must  be  a  believer. 

This  is  shown  by  the  following  Scriptures: 

"Bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance." 
Matt.  3:8. 

"But  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the 
things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both 
men  and  women." — Acts  8:12. 

"And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came 
unto  a  certain  water,  and  the  eunuch  said,  See 
here  is  water;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  bap- 
tized. And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with 
all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest.  And  he  answered 
and  said,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God."  Acts  8:36,  37,  38. 


69 


"And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue, believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house; 
and  many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing  believed, 
and  were  baptized."  Acts  18:8. 

"Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were 
baptized."  Acts  2:41. 

We  might  add  many  more  Scriptures,  but  is 
this  not  enough  ?  Possibly  we  had  better  mention 
the  case  of  Lydia  and  her  household  and  the  jailor 
and  his  household.  All  we  ask  of  you  on  this 
point  is  to  read  them  carefully  and  see  if  they 
were  not  believers  too.  There  is  not  a  single  ex- 
ample of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament  where 
they  did  not  believe  they  were  baptized. 

(b)   The  candidate  must  be  a  willing  subject. 

Baptism  is  administered  upon  demand  and  not 
by  coercion  as  my  Pedo  brethren  have  it. 

3.  It  must  be  a  scriptural  act. 

Baptism  is  a  picture,  and  since  it  is,  just  any- 
thing will  not  do.  Pictures  may  be  misleading, 
and  when  we  change  the  ordinance  entirely,  we 
change  the  picture.  Suppose  you  have  a  picture 
of  your  dear  old  mother  hanging  upon  the  wall 
of  your  home,  and  some  one  comes  in  and  takes 
it  down  and  hangs  the  picture  of  a  harlot  in  its 
place,  will  that  do  just  as  well?  Suppose  they 
hang  the  picture  of  your  sister  or  another  woman 
would  it  do?  No,  no,  a  thousand  times  no.  They 
are  not  pictures  of  mother.  Hers  may  not  be 
as  beautiful  as  the  others,  but  there  is  nothing 
that  can  take  the  place  of  mother's.  Let  us  see 
further  about  this  matter. 

The  candidate  must  be  immersed  in  water  or 


70 


there  is  no  baptism  at  all.  Anything  else  is  solemn 
mockery.  It  is  misleading  to  try  to  change  one 
of  the  Lord's  solemn  ordinances.  My  friend,  will 
you  be  so  irreverent  as  to  try  to  change  such 
a  sublime  ordinance  as  baptism?  Now,  let  us  see 
why  we  say  that  it  is  immersion  and  nothing  else. 

We  want  to  argue  this  from  three  points. 

(1)  Scripturally.  (2)Philologically.  (3)  His- 
torically. 

All  three  of  these  witnesses  prove  the  act  to 
be  immersion  and  nothing  else  but  immersion. 

1.  Scripturally. 

Let  us  examine  the  following  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture: Matt.  3:6,  "And  were  baptized  of  him  in 
Jordan,  confessing  their  sins."  Mark  1:5,  "And 
there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea, 
and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of 
him  in  the  river  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins." 
Acts  8:38,  "And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to 
stand  still:  and  they  went  down  both  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch:  and  he  bap- 
tized him."  Rom.  6:4,  "Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death:  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  life."  Col.  2:12,  "Buried  with  him  in 
baptism  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  Read  these 
scriptures  carefully  and  see  if  they  do  not  teach 
that  the  ordinance  was  immersion.  You  will  find 
that  "Much  water"  is  mentioned;  "buried,"  and 
they  both  went  down  into  the  water  and  he  bap- 


71 


tized  him."  Whatever  the  act  was  in  olden  times 
it  was  performed  in  the  water.  Nothing  but  im- 
mersion will  fit  in  where  baptism  is  mentioned. 

(2)  Let  us  look  at  the  meaning  of  baptize 
Surely  the  meaning  of  the  world  will  lead  us  into 
the  light  of  what  they  did  that  was  called  bap- 
tism. 

We  will  say  in  the  beginning  that  baptizo 
cannot  mean  anything  but  immerse  or  something 
similar. 

To  get  at  the  real  meaning  and  to  see  how 
strong  the  term  baptizo  is,  let  us  examine  every 
Greek  word  used  in  the  New  Testament  with  any 
shade  of  meaning  bordering  on  sprinkle,  pour, 
wet,  wash,  or  anything  like  that. 

1()  Nipto — to  bath  hands  or  feet.  John  13:5, 
"After  that  he  poureth  water  into  a  basin,  and  be- 
gan to  wash  the  disciples'  feet,  and  to  wipe  them 
with  the  towel  wherewith  he  was  girded." 

(2)  Brecho — to  wet,  to  moisten,  Luke  7:38, 
"And  stood  at  his  feet  behind  him  weeping,  and 
began  to  wash  his  feet  with  tears,  and  did  wipe 
them  with  the  hairs  of  her  head,  and  kissed  his 
feet,  and  anointed  them  with  ointment." 

(3)  Duno — to  sink.  Mark  1 :32,  "And  at  even, 
when  the  sun  did  set,  they  brought  unto  him  all 
that  were  diseased,  and  them  that  were  possessed 
with  devils."  Luke  4 :40,  "Now  when  the  sun  was 
setting,  all  they  that  had  any  sick  with  divers 
diseases  brought  them  unto  him;  and  he  laid  his 
hands  on  every  one  of  them,  and  healed  them." 

(4)  Katapointizo — to  sink,  to  go  down  to  the 
bottom.  Matt.  14 :30,  "But  when  he  saw  the  wind 


72 


boisterous,  he  was  afraid:  and  beginning  to  sink, 
he  cried,  saying,  Lord,  save  me." 

(5)  Buthizo — to  plunge  into  the  deep.  Luke 
5:7,  "And  they  beckoned  unto  their  partners, 
which  were  in  the  other  ship,  that  they  should 
come  and  help  them.  And  they  came,  and  filled 
both  ships,  so  that  they  began  to  sink." 

(6)  Pluno — to  wash  clothing.  Rev.  7:14,  "And 
I  said  unto  him,  Sir,  thou  knowest.  And  he  said 
to  me,  These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great 
tribulation  and  have  washed  their  robes,  and 
made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb." 

(7)  Louo — to  wash  the  body.  Heb.  10:22, 
"Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  conscience,  and  our 
bodies  washed  with  pure  water." 

(8)  Apopluno — to  wash  off.  Luke  5:2,  "And 
saw  two  ships  standing  by  the  lake:  but  the 
fishermen  were  gone  out  of  them,  and  were  wash- 
ing their  nets." 

(9)  Spendo — to  pour  out,  a  libation.  II  Tim. 
4:6,  "For  I  am  now  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the 
time  of  my  departure  is  at  hand." 

(10)  Proscheo — to  pour  upon.  Heb.  11:28, 
"Through  faith  he  kept  the  passover,  and  the 
sprinkling  of  blood,  lest  he  that  destroyed  the 
firstborn  should  touch  them." 

(11)  Cheo — to  pour. 

(12)  Rantizo — to  sprinkle.  Heb.  9:13,  19,  21, 
"For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sancti- 
fieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh."  19,  "For 
when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  to  all  the 
people  according  to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood 


73 


of  calves  and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scarlet 
-wool,  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book, 
and  all  the  people."  21,  "Moreover  he  sprinkled 
with  blood  both  the  tabernacle,  and  all  the  ves- 
sels of  the  ministry."  Heb.  10:22,  "Let  us  draw 
near  with  a  true  heart  in  full  assurance  of  faith, 
having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  con- 
science, and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  wa- 
ter." Heb.  12:24,  "And  to  Jesus  the  mediator  of 
the  new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of  sprinkling, 
that  speaketh  better  things  than  that  of  Abel." 
I  Peter  1 :2,  "Elect  according  to  the  foreknowl- 
edge of  God  the  Father,  through  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ:  Grace  unto  you,  and 
peace,  be  multiplied." 

(13)  Baptizo — to  immerse,  to  submerge,  to 
sink.  It  is  used  a  great  many  times  in  the  new 
Testament,  and  not  a  single  time  without  the 
idea  of  a  complete  submerging  of  the  entire  sub- 
stance. 

This  word  is  derived  from  Bapto,  to  dip,  to 
dye. 

Now,  you  can  see  at  a  glance  that  there  is 
no  word  in  the  Greek  language  that  means  to  put 
an  object  into  the  water  and  bring  it  out  at  once, 
but  BAPTIZO. 

And  more,  you  can  see  that  if  the  Lord  had  in- 
tended us  to  dip  sometimes  and  then  sprinkle 
when  it  suited  us  best,  then  pour,  or  wet,  or  do 
as  we  pleased  about  it,  would  he  not  have  used 
Baptizo  and  Rantizo  interchangeably  ?  Surely  he 
would.  But  he  did  not  do  that,  and  since  he  uses 


74 


but  one  word,  and  that  word  means  to  immerse, 
we  can  see  just  what  he  meant  for  us  to  do.  It 
then  is  not  a  matter  of  choice  with  us,  but  a 
solemn  command  which  we  can  obey  and  honor 
him,  or  disobey  and  dishonor  him. 

We  might  take  our  readers  through  the  Greek 
lexicons  and  show  that  every  one  of  any  note 
gives  the  same  meaning  that  we  have  given  here, 
but  we  deem  it  unnecessary.  If  you  are  not 
satisfied  about  this  matter,  then  we  will  give 
other  proof. 

3.  Now,  let  us  see  what  history  says  about 
the  practice  of  the  early  church.  The  first  his- 
torian we  wish  to  bring  up  is  Moseheim,  and  let 
me  say  here  that  he  was  not  a  Baptist. 

"And  those  who  professed  repentance  and  re- 
formation, he  initiated  in  the  approaching  king- 
dom of  the  Saviour,  by  immersion  in  the  Jordan." 
Matt.  3:2.  Vol.  1,  page  42. 

"The  first  of  all  the  Christian  churches  found- 
ed by  the  apostles,  was  that  of  Jerusalem;  and 
after  the  form  and  model  of  this,  all  the  others 
of  that  age  were  constituted."  Vol.  1,  page  46. 

"In  this  century  baptism  was  administered  in 
convenient  places,  without  the  public  assemblies; 
and  by  immersing  the  candidate  wholly  in  water." 
Vol.  1,  page  87 ;  Century  one. 

"Twice  a  year,  at  Easter  and  Whitsuntide, 
baptism  was  publicly  administered  by  the 
BISHOP,  or  by  the  presbyters  acting  by  his  com- 
mand and  authority.  The  candidates  for  it  were 
immersed  wholly  in  water,  with  invocation  of  the 
sacred  Trinity,  according  to  the  Saviour's  precept, 


75 


after  they  had  repeated  what  they  called  the 
creed,  and  had  renounced  all  their  sins  and  trans- 
gressions, and  especially  the  devil  and  his  pomp." 
Vol.  1,  page  137. 

"The  usual  form  of  baptism  was  immersion. 
This  is  inferred  from  the  original  meaning  of  the 
Greek  BAPTIZEIN  and  BAPTISMOS;  from  the 
analogy  of  John's  Baptism  in  the  Jordan;  from 
the  apostles'  comparison  of  the  sacred  rite  with 
the  miraculous  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  with  the 
escape  of  the  ark  from  the  flood,  with  a  cleans- 
ing and  refreshing  bath,  and  with  burial  and  res- 
urrection ;  finally,  from  the  GENERAL  CUSTOM 
of  the  ANCIENT  CHURCH,  which  prevails  in 
the  East  to  this  day."  Schaff.  His.  Christian  Ch., 
Vol.  1,  page  468. 

To  this  we  wish  to  add  his  footnote  on  the 
same  page.  It  surely  will  have  some  bearing 
since  he  was  a  great  Presbyterian  scholar. 

Note  1. — Compare  the  German  "taufen,"  the 
English  "dip."  Grimm  defines  BAPTIZO  (the 
f requentive  of  BAPTO)  "immergo,"  "submergo ;" 
Liddell  and  Scott :  "to  dip  in  or  under  the  water." 
But  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  New  Testament 
it  has  also  a  wider  meaning.  Hence  Robinson  de- 
fines it :  "to  wash,  to  lave,  to  cleanse  by  washing." 
And  again  he  says,  "Unquestionably,  immersion 
expresses  the  idea  of  baptism  as  a  purification 
and  renovation  of  the  whole  man,  more  completely 
than  pouring  or  sprinkling."  Cf.  page  469. 

Let  us  now  examine  Neander.  He  is  admit- 
ted as  one  of  the  foremost  historians  of  the  past 
century,  yet  he  was  not  a  Baptist.  Let  him  testi- 


76 


fy  as  to  the  original  act  of  baptism: 

"In  respect  to  the  form  of  baptism,  it  was  in 
conformity  with  the  original  institution  and  the 
original  import  of  the  symbol,  performed  by  im- 
mersion as  a  sign  of  the  entire  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  of  being  entirely  penetrated  by  the 
same."   Neander,  Vol.  1,  page  310. 

We  will  quote  at  length  from  William 
Wall,  the  historian  that  undertook  to  justify  in- 
fant baptism  by  history.  In  speaking  of  the  an- 
cient church  and  the  customs  of  it,  he  says. 
"Their  general  and  ordinary  way  was  to  baptize 
by  immersion,  or  by  dipping  the  person,  whether 
it  were  an  infant,  or  grown  man  or  woman,  into 
the  water.  This  is  so  plain  and  clear  by  an  infinite 
number  of  passages,  that  as  one  cannot  but  pity 
the  weak  endeavors  of  such  pedobaptists  as  would 
maintain  the  negative  of  it;  so  also  we  ought  to 
disown  and  show  a  dislike  of  the  profane  scoffs 
which  some  people  give  to  the  English  anti-pedo- 
baptist  merely  for  their  use  of  dipping.  It  is 
one  thing  to  maintain  that  circumstance  is  not 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  essence  of  baptism, 
and  another  to  go  about  to  represent  it  as  ridicu- 
lous and  foolish,  or  as  shameful  and  indecent, 
when  it  was  in  all  probability  the  way  by  which 
our  blessed  Saviour,  and  for  certain  was  the  most 
usual  and  ordinary  way  by  which  the  ancient 
Christians  did  receive  their  baptism.  I  shall  not 
stay  to  produce  the  particular  proofs  of  this. 
Many  of  the  quotations  which  I  brought  for  other 
purposes,  and  shall  bring,  do  evince  it.  It  is  a 
great  want  of  prudence,  as  well  as  of  honesty, 


77 


to  refuse  to  grant  an  adversary  what  is  certainly- 
true,  and  may  be  proved.  It  creates  a  jealousy 
of  all  the  rest  that  one  says."  His.  Infant  Bap., 
Vol.  1,  pages  570  and  571. 

Now,  will  any  pedobaptist  try  to  contradict 
the  above? 

We  feel  that  Wall  was  an  honest  scholar 
whether  he  was  honest  in  his  religious  convictions 
or  not.  We  will  quote  but  a  few  more  historians 
on  this  point.  It  seems  that  we  have  already 
brought  enough  proof  to  convince  anyone.  We 
feel  sure  we  have  if  they  want  to  know  the  truth. 
Men  are  not  hunting  for  the  truth  as  they  should. 

We  will  now  call  the  founder  of  Methodism, 
John  Wesley,  on  the  stand  and  see  what  he  has 
to  say  about  it.  His  notes  on  Romans  6:4,  says 
this:  "We  are  buried  with  him."  Alluding  to  the 
ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion.  Is  this 
not  plain  enough? 

We  have  proven  beyond  a  doubt  that  the 
apostolic  church  immersed.  The  Scriptures  justify 
immersion  and  nothing  else.  Greek  literature  jus- 
tifies immersion.  The  Greek  word,  as  explained 
by  the  lexicographers,  say  that  "Baptizo"  means 
immerse,  and  last,  the  entire  Christian  world  en- 
dorses it.   Is  this  not  conclusive? 

We  want  to  offer  one  more  argument,  that 
is,  Immersion  is  the  side  of  the  least  doubt.  How 
many  have  become  dissatisfied  with  sprinkling 
and  pouring  as  baptism  and  have  gone  to  Bap- 
tist preachers  and  have  been  immersed  to  sat- 
isfy their  conscience.  I  have  baptized  dozens 
of  them  myself.    Now,  did  you  ever  hear  of  a 


78 


Baptist  becoming  dissatisfied  with  immersion  as 
baptism?  By  no  means,  but  rather  to  the  con- 
trary. 

The  next  question  before  us  is:  If  the  apos- 
tolic custom  was  immersion,  where  did  sprinkling 
come  from  ?  When  and  why  the  change  ?  I  think 
we  can  settle  this  question  also.  I  feel  that  I 
ought  to  do  this  as  so  many  are  trying  to  get  rid 
of  the  ordinance  as  it  was  given  by  Christ  himself. 
We  will  refer  to  Dean  Stanley's  Christian  Institu- 
tions, page  21 : 

"We  now  pass  to  the  change  in  the  form  itself. 
For  the  first  thirteen  centuries  the  almost  uni- 
versal practice  of  baptism  was  that  of  which  we 
read  in  the  New  Testament,  and  which  is  the  very 
meaning  of  the  word  'baptize,' — that  those  who 
were  baptized  were  plunged,  submerged,  im- 
mersed into  the  water.  That  practice  is  still,  as 
we  have  seen,  continued  in  Eastern  churches.  In 
the  Western  church,  it  still  lingers  among  Ro- 
man Catholics  in  the  solitary  instance  of  the 
cathedral  of  Milan;  among  Protestants  in  the 
numerous  sects  of  the  Baptist."  This  tells  of  the 
change,  and  is  it  not  strange  that  he  admits  this  ? 
Yet  he  was  honest  enough  to  do  so,  and  at  the 
same  time  try  to  defend  what  Rome  did.  Some 
men  have  enough  cheek  to  do  anything,  but  still 
we  are  glad  he  admitted  this  fact.  Since  he  does, 
we  can  see  one  thing  very  clearly  and  that  is  that 
the  pedobaptist  world  is  following  Rome  in  their 
practice  of  sprinkling  and  pouring.  As  for  my 
part,  I  had  rather  follow  Christ  and  the  apostles, 
had  you  not,  too? 


79 


(We  will  say  something  about  where  sprink- 
ling came  from  in  another  article  on  Infant  Bap- 
tism.  It  will  come  later.) 

4.  We  now  pass  to  its  symbolism  or  the  de- 
sign of  baptism. 

We  do  not  need  to  say  very  much  about  this 
point,  but  will  try  to  make  it  very  clear  so  that 
everyone  reading  this  may  understand  what  we 
are  trying  to  prove. 

1.  Our  baptism  is  a  public  profession  of  our 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  our  Prophet,  Priest,  and 
King.  It  shows  that  we  have  received  Him  into 
our  hearts,  and  now  we  desire  to  maake  public 
what  we  have  done  privately.  Baptism  and  faith 
are  very  closely  allied.  Baptism  has  no  saving 
power,  but  is  wonderful  evidence  of  a  changed 
heart.  The  regenerated  life  seeks  to  follow  its 
Lord,  and  one  of  the  first  things  that  it  is  called 
upon  to  do  is  to  show  its  loyalty  by  obedience  to 
His  commands. 

2.  It  is  not  only  an  open  profession  of  our 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  but  shows  our  entire  sub- 
mission to  His  will.  There  is  no  greater  sign  of 
discipleship  than  entire  obedience  to  His  com- 
mands. You  cannot  make  me  believe  in  your  re- 
ligion until  you  show  me  that  you  are  striving  to 
obey  the  Master's  commands.  "Why  call  ye  me 
Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the  things  I  say?"  I  do 
not  think  that  the  Holy  Spirit  will  lead  men  in 
opposite  directions  when  it  comes  to  the  com- 
mands of  our  Saviour.  But  when  we  see  how  peo- 
ple are  trying  to  evade  the  Lord's  commands, 
we  are  pained  and  made  to  lose  confidence  en- 


80 


tirely.  There  is  nothing  that  shows  our  entire 
submission  to  the  Master  and  a  pledge  of  our  ser- 
vice to  His  cause  as  baptism.  When  the  Jewish 
fathers  were  baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea, 
they  were  pledged  to  Moses  as  their  leader. 

3.  Baptism  also  shows  that  we  have  been 
freed  from  sin  by  the  death  of  our  blessed  Lord. 
It  is  an  outward  sign  of  inward  purity. 

4.  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  the  fact  that  we  are 
buried  and  risen  with  Christ.  We  show  to  the 
world  that  we  are  dead  to  sin  and  since  we  are 
we  must  be  buried ;  therefore,  we  are  baptized. 

5.  Baptism  also  shows  that  we  believe  in  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Notice  Ro- 
mans 6:3-4.  "Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized 
into  his  death?"  Therefore  we  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptism  into  death ;  that  like  as  Christ 
was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness 
of  life."  Baptism  is  the  only  living  witness  of 
His  resurrection.  Just  so  sure  as  we  make  it 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  we  destroy  the  witness  of 
His  resurrection.  What  a  sublime  picture !  Dead, 
buried,  and  praise  God,  resurrected  by  the  power 
of  God !   What  a  wonderful  picture ! 

6.  In  the  last  place,  it  is  not  only  a  monument 
to  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  but  a  pledge  of 
our  own  resurrection.  Every  time  the  solemn 
ordinance  is  administered,  it  reminds  us  that  we 
are  going  to  rise  from  the  dead.  There  is  no  doc- 
trine in  the  Bible  dearer  than  that  of  the  resur- 
rection.  And  since  it  means  so  much,  it  is  so  im- 


81 


portant  then  that  we  carry  out  our  Lord's  com- 
mands in  regard  to  this  sublime  ordinance. 

Now,  since  we  have  shown  what  Christian 
baptism  is,  let  us  examine  a  few  concluding 
thoughts : 

"If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of 
the  doctrine."  John  7:17. 

"And  all  the  people  that  heard  him,  and  the 
publicans,  justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the 
baptism  of  John.  But  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers 
rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves, 
being  not  baptized  of  him."  Luke  7 :29,  30. 

"For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heav- 
en, the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost; 
and  these  three  are  one.  There  are  three  that 
bear  witness  in  earth:  the  spirit,  and  the  water, 
and  the  blood;  and  these  three  agree  in  one." 
John  5:7,  8. 

"We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  man." 
Acts  5:29. 

Let  us  hear  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter: "Fear  God  and  keep  His  commandments." 
My  brother,  have  you  done  so?   If  not,  why  not? 


82 


CHAPTER  VI 


SHOULD  BAPTIST  EXIST  AS  AN  INDEPEND- 
ENT   DENOMINATION,    OR    SHOULD 
THEY  UNITE  WITH  PEDOBAPTIST 
DENOMINATIONS? 


We  have  undertaken  a  very  important  dis- 
cussion in  this  chapter,  but  we  hope  to  handle  it 
in  such  a  way  that  our  readers  may  be  convinced 
that  the  Baptist  position  is  right.  Through  all 
the  ages  of  Christianity  Baptist  have  refused  to 
unite  with  other  denominations.  Many  of  them 
have  been  burned  because  they  refused  to  have 
their  babies  christened,  and  because  they  would 
not  recognize  sprinkling  as  baptism.  Have  they 
been  right  in  their  contentions,  or  was  it  mere 
fanaticism  that  caused  them  to  do  as  they  did? 
We  do  not  believe  that  it  was  anything  but  a  de- 
termined adherence  to  truth  that  made  them  do 
as  they  have  done  in  many  instances.  Truth  to 
Baptist  means  everything.  They  take  nothing 
but  the  Bible  as  their  rule  for  faith  and  practice, 
and  when  they  do  this,  they  must  discard  many 
things  others  practice.  They  do  not  believe  that 
this  multiplicity  of  denominations  is  a  blessing, 
but  that  it  is  an  evil  of  the  most  dangerous  type. 
Nothing  has  so  confused  the  world  as  this  array 
of  isms.  Every  one  of  them  has  different  char- 
acteristics and  different  doctrines.  You  can  har- 
monize the  doctrines  of  infidels  as  well  as  you  can 


8^ 


the  doctrines  of  the  different  denominations  of 
the  world.  Everyone  of  them  believes  that  it  is 
right  and  that  all  the  others  are  wrong.  Some 
say  when  you  get  them  hemmed  in,  that  there  are 
some  good  people  in  all  denominations;  yes  and 
there  are  many  good  people  in  the  world  who  do 
not  belong  to  any  church.  This  is  no  argument 
at  all.  What  we  want  to  know  is  who  is  right 
about  this  question.  Has  one  denomination  as 
good  a  right  to  exist  as  another,  or  should  there 
be  a  difference?  Now,  remember,  we  have  no 
abuse  for  any  one.  It  is  not  our  business  to  dis- 
cuss persons,  but  creeds.  All  we  wish  to  settle 
here  is  the  one  question  as  to  whether  we  should 
unite  with  others  and  form  a  union.  Can  we 
hold  union  meetings  with  other  denominations 
without  sacrificing  our  principles  and  without 
endangering  our  position?  or  should  we  steer 
clear  of  all  of  them?  If  we  should,  have  we  a 
right  to  do  so?  Let  us  discuss  this  as  carefully 
as  anything  can  be  and  settle  it  once  and  forever. 
We  do  not  believe  that  the  honest  Christian, 
wherever  he  may  be  will  find  fault  with  us  for 
our  attitude  in  this  matter  if  he  understands 
why  we  do  as  we  are  supposed  to  do.  Some  Bap- 
tist preachers,  so  called,  are  not  Baptist,  and  you 
cannot  tell  what  they  will  do.  Some  of  them 
will  receive  members  from  other  denominations 
if  they  have  been  immersed  without  baptising 
them.  Just  as  well  receive  those  who  have  been 
sprinkled.  Baptism,  as  you  will  see  in  the  chap- 
ter on  it  in  this  book,  must  be  administered  by  a 
proper  administrator  to  be  valid,  but  let  us  go 

84 


into  this  discussion.  Should  a  Baptist  be  allowed 
to  exist  and  preach  the  doctrine  they  do,  or 
should  they  be  put  out  of  existence  ?  If  they  can- 
not show  a  good  reason  why  they  should  be  allow- 
ed to  exist,  then  let  us  obliterate  all  of  their 
churches,  tear  down  all  of  their  schools,  and  erase 
their  name  from  the  earth. 

1.  In  the  first  place  we  wish  to  say  that  we 
have  a  divine  right  to  exist  as  an  independent 
organization.  But  you  ask,  why  do  you  lay  such 
a  claim  to  eternal  things  ? 

1.  Because  we  are  not  responsible  for  being 
here.  Elizabeth  was  passed  the  child-bearing  age 
when  John  was  born.  She  had  given  up  the  hope 
of  having  a  child,  but  the  angel  came  and  gave 
the  promise  that  she  should  have  a  child  born 
unto  her,  and  according  to  the  promise  the  child 
was  born.  He  was  named  John  and  when  he  be- 
gan his  ministry,  he  was  called  The  Baptist.  This 
was  the  beginning  of  the  name  Baptist.  Some 
say  that  is  was  his  surname,  but  anyone  knows 
that  this  is  not  true.  Why  was  the  surname  not 
mentioned  before  his  birth  ? 

2.  Our  name  is  of  divine  origin.  You  must 
place  it  in  revelation.  It  came  from  God.  No  man 
can  trace  the  origin  of  the  Baptist  back  to  some 
schism,  encumenical  council,  or  revolution  that 
brought  it  in  existence.  It  had  its  beginning  with 
God  and  no  man  can  deny  it.  No  historian  at- 
tempts to  show  that  the  Baptist  originated  this 
side  of  John  and  Christ.  Such  would  be  an  ab- 
surdity of  the  basest  sort.  You  cannot  find  any 
nook  or  corner  in  ecclesiastical  history  where  the 

35 


Baptist  took  their  rise  because  of  some  petty  no- 
tion of  an  ecclesiastic.    Some  want  to  say  that 
Roger  Williams  was  the  first  Baptist  preacher, 
but  no  one  with  any  degree  of  information  will 
undertake  such  an  argument.   Some  men  are  bold 
enough   to   undertake   almost   anything,    and   to 
delude  the  ignorant,  they  make  such  assertions 
to  justify  their  positions  in  this  world,  but  when 
it  comes  to  truth,  they  are  not  in  it.   Roger  Wil- 
liams never  was  a  member  of  a  regular  Baptist 
church,   but  was   baptized  by   Ezekiel   Holliman 
because  he  thought  that  immersion  was  right  and 
he  had  no  one  to  baptize  him  but  one  of  the  com- 
pany who  himself   had   not   been   baptized.   Dr. 
Clark  who  was  a  regular  Baptist  preacher  came 
here  and  was  preaching  eight  years  before  Roger 
Williams   originated   his   church   at   Providence, 
Rhode  Island.    (See  Ford's  Origin  of  the  Baptist). 
Mosheim  the  noted  historian  says  that  the  Ana- 
baptist originated  in  the  remotest  bounds  of  an- 
tiquity.  The  Anabaptist  were  the  Baptist  of  the 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.    The  name 
Baptist  came  with  the  people  who  followed  Jesus 
in  the  early  centuries,  but  the  name  was  mixed 
to  some  extent  during  the  dark  ages,  but  it  is  as 
clear  today  as  it  was  when  John  was  named  the 
Baptist.   But  what  is  there  in  a  name  any  way? 
Have   you   ever   thought   about   it?   God   named 
Adam,  did  it  mean  anything  ?   God  named  Jacob ; 
did   his   name   mean    anything  ?    Christ   named 
Peter ;  did  his  name  mean  anything  ?  John  means 
Jehovah   is   gracious;   Baptist   means   baptizer. 
Put  the  two  together  and    what    do    we    have? 

86 


Jehovah's  gracious  Baptizer.  Can  anything  be 
better  fitted  than  that? 

3.  God's  providential  care  for  them  ought  to 
give  them  a  place  in  this  world. 

Baptist  have  suffered  untold  hardships 
through  all  of  the  past  ages  until  the  last  cen- 
tury. They  have  been  laughed  at,  they  have  been 
mocked,  they  have  been  scourged,  they  have  been 
burned  at  the  stake,  they  have  been  fed  to  raven- 
ous beasts,  they  have  been  jailed  and  tortured 
in  every  conceivable  way,  but  they  have  survived 
it  all  by  the  grace  of  the  eternal  God.  Their 
foot  prints  have  been  traced  over  the  Alps  by 
their  blood,  they  have  been  hiding  like  beasts 
of  the  forest,  they  have  been  hunted  like  wild 
boars,  but  through  it  all  God  has  taken  care  of 
them  and  has  brought  their  posterity  down  to 
this  good  day  when  we  have  religious  liberty  so 
that  we  can  worship  God  according  to  the  dic- 
tates of  our  own  consciences.  Their  sufferings 
are  recorded  in  heaven  and  some  day  they  are  go- 
ing to  be  revealed.  Terrible  will  be  that  day  when 
the  secrets  of  all  men's  hearts  will  be  made 
known,  and  terrible  will  be  the  fear  that  will  seize 
those  who  inflicted  so  many  wounds  upon  the  poor 
followers  of  Jesus  Christ  when  that  day  shall 
come.  God's  providential  care  is  the  only  thing 
that  has  brought  us  down  to  this  good  day.  Had 
he  not  cared  for  us,  we  would  have  become  ex- 
tinct long  ago. 

II.  We  have  a  Distinct  Message  for  this  world. 
This  ought  to  give  us  a  right  to  exist  as  an  in- 
dependent denomination.  We  have  a  message  en- 

87 


tirely  our  own.  No  other  people  on  earth  have  the 
message  we  have,  and  if  we  do  not  deliver  it,  the 
world  will  never  hear  it.  With  Baptist  it  is  not 
how  much  truth  we  hold  in  common  with  other 
people,  but  how  much  we  hold  that  the  others  do 
not  have  at  all.  Baptists  are  not  trying  to  har- 
monize, but  they  are  trying  to  show  the  difference 
between  heresy  and  orthodoxy. 

Here  is  our  distinctive  message: 

1.  Absolute  freedom  in  religion.  Baptist  do 
not  believe  in  coercion  in  matters  of  religion. 
Baptist  do  not  believe  in  proselyting  in  any  way. 
Let  every  man  of  his  own  free  will  and  accord 
worship  God  in  his  own  way.  This  is  the  Bap- 
tist message.  No  other  people  on  earth  have 
this  for  the  world.  This  is  the  plain  teachings  of 
God's  word.  "But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is, 
when  the  true  worshipers  shall  worship  the  Fath- 
er in  spirit  and  in  truth:  for  the  Father  seeketh 
such  to  worship  him,"  John  4:23;  "But  ye  are  a 
chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  an  holy 
nation,  a  peculiar  people;  that  ye  should  show 
forth  the  praises  of  him  who  hath  called  you  out 
of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light,"  I  Peter 
4:9.  No  service  can  be  forced  upon  a  people  if  it 
be  unwilling,  according  to  the  Scriptures.  This 
excludes  infant  baptism  and  the  union  of  church 
and  state.  Every  man  among  us  is  a  free  man. 
No  church,  no  synod,  no  priest,  no  prelate,  no 
pope,  no  confessor  can  bend  the  human  will,  or 
direct  the  consciences  of  men.  Such  is  not  the 
teachings  of  God's  word,  according  to  the  inter- 
pretations of  the  Baptists,  but  this  kind  of  re- 

88 


ligion  can  be  found  in  England,  Scotland,  Ger- 
many, France,  and  in  many  sections  of  the  New 
World.  Let  every  man  be  what  he  wants  to  be, 
then  his  service  will  be  willing. 

2.  The  second  message  we  have  that  is  entire- 
ly our  own  is  membership  all  of  their  own  free 
will  and  accord.  Repent,  believe,  join  the  church, 
and  be  baptized  all  of  their  own  free  will  and  ac- 
cord. We  do  not  make  Baptists  out  of  folks.  We 
want  that  to  be  entirely  of  the  Lord.  When  He 
does  the  work,  it  is  always  joyous  and  the  member 
is  always  willing  to  render  service  worthy  of  the 
name  Christian. 

3.  Believer's  baptism  is  another  doctrine  en- 
tirely baptistic.  If  we  fail  to  preach  this,  it  will 
not  be  preached  and  believer's  baptism  will  not  be 
known  within  half  a  century.  The  Bible  is  very 
clear  on  this  point,  and  Baptist  try  to  emphasize 
all  that  the  scriptures  declare.  Infant  baptism  is 
not  according  to  the  teachings  of  the  scriptures, 
and  no  honest  pedobaptist  tries  to  show  that  it 
is.  Baptist  say  that  such  is  against  the  teachings 
of  our  Lord  and  Master  Jesus  Christ. 

4.  The  final  perseverance  of  the  saints  as  it 
is  taught  in  the  scriptures.  There  are  some  people 
who  believe  in  this  doctrine,  but  it  is  not  as  dis- 
tinctly a  doctrine  in  other  denominations  as  it 
is  in  the  Baptist  program.  There  is  no  sweeter 
doctrine  in  the  Bible  to  Baptist. 

5.  A  free  and  independent  church  govern- 
ment. Every  Baptist  church  is  an  independent 
organization.  No  conference,  no  synod,  no  other 
power  on  earth  can  say  just  what  it  shall  do, 

89 


or  shall  not  do.  Every  member  has  a  right  to 
speak  for  himself,  and  must  be  heard.  A  Baptist 
church  is  a  little  republic  all  of  itself.  It  is  gov- 
erned from  within  and  not  from  without.  It  can 
call  any  preacher  it  wishes  and  keep  him  as  long 
as  they  can  agree.  It  has  the  right  to  receive  and 
exclude  members  as  it  wishes.  No  one  can  say 
what  it  shall  do  or  what  it  shall  not  do.  There  is 
no  lording  it  over  God's  heritage  with  the  Bap- 
tist. Our  own  republic  was  formed  after  the  fash- 
ion of  a  Baptist  church. 

6.  Separation  of  church  and  state.  This  be- 
longs entirely  to  the  Baptist.  True,  many  more 
people  believe  in  this  truth  now,  but  Baptist  had 
to  champion  the  cause  to  bring  it  into  existence. 
They  have  had  many  a  hard  battle  to  fight  to  get 
this  idea  in  force  here  in  our  own  country.  One 
of  the  Adams  said  that  it  would  never  be  in  the 
United  States,  but  Baptist  have  won  out  on  this 
point  as  they  have  on  many  others. 

III.  What  they  have  suffered  for  truth's 
sake  ought  to  give  them  a  place  in  the  world 
among  the  other  people.  Their  history  is  a  story 
of  suffering  and  bloodshed,  and  all  of  it  for  what 
they  have  believed.  They  have  always  been  a 
law  abiding  people.  They  have  never  given  any 
government  any  trouble.  They  have  always  tried 
to  support  the  country  in  which  they  lived,  but 
they  have  not  had  the  protection  they  should  have 
had  in  many  cases.  They  have  suffered  untold 
agonies  in  many  instances  because  of  what  they 
believed.  Baptist  have  honored  the  world  with  mil- 
lions  of  martyrs,  but  they  have  never  persecuted 

90 


a  single  person.  All  of  this  martyrdom  has  been 
the  out  croppings  of  some  fanatical  religion.  Eng- 
land and  all  of  Europe  has  caused  the  Baptist  to 
suffer  untold  agonies  because  the  Baptist  would 
not  submit  to  the  dictates  of  pope  and  priest  and 
have  their  babies  sprinkled,  say  mass  for  the 
dead,  confess  to  the  priest,  and  similar  things. 
Baptist  have  always  had  a  conscience  that  they 
could  depend  on.  They  have  been  led  by  honest 
conviction  of  truth,  and  they  will  give  up  their 
lives  rather  than  submit  to  something  that  they 
believe  to  be  wrong.  We  refer  our  readers  to 
Baptist  Book  of  Martyrs,  The  Struggles  for  Re- 
ligious Liberty  in  Virginia,  and  almost  any  good 
eccelesiastical  history  that  has  the  history  of 
religions  in  America.  For  the  information  of  our 
readers,  we  are  going  to  give  a  few  incidents  from 
history. 

The  Kehukee  Associational  History  has  this 
to  say:  "A  certain  woman  by  the  name  of  Daw- 
son, in  the  town  of  Windsor,  N.  C,  had  reason  to 
hope  that  her  soul  was  converted,  saw  baptism 
to  be  a  duty  for  a  believer  to  comply  with,  and 
expressed  a  great  desire  to  join  the  church  at 
Cashie,  under  the  care  of  Elder  Dargan.  Her 
husband,  who  was  violently  opposed  to  it,  and 
a  great  persecutor,  had  threatened,  that  if  any 
man  baptized  his  wife  he  would  shoot  him;  ac- 
cordingly baptism  was  deferred  for  some  con- 
siderable time.  At  length  Elder  Tanner  was  pres- 
ent at  Elder  Dargan's  meeting,  and  Mrs.  Dawson 
applied  to  the  church  for  baptism,  expressing  her 
desire  to  comply  with  her  duty.    She  related  her 

91 


experience,  and  was  received;  and  as  Elder  Dar- 
gan  was  an  infirm  man,  he  generally,  when  other 
ministers  were  present,  would  apply  to  them  to 
administer  the  ordinance  in  his  stead.  He  there- 
fore requested  Elder  Tanner  to  perform  the  duty 
of  Baptism  at  this  time.  Whether  Elder  Tanner 
was  apprized  of  Dawson's  threatening  or  not; 
or  whether  he  thought  it  was  his  duty  to  obey 
God  rather  than  man,  we  are  not  able  to  say; 
but  so  it  was  he  baptized  Sister  Dawson.  And  in 
June  following,  which  was  in  the  year  1777,  Elder 
Tanner  was  expected  to  preach  at  Sandy  Run 
meeting-house,  and  Dawson,  hearing  of  the  ap- 
pointment, came  up  from  Windsor  to  Norfleet's 
ferry  on  Roanoke,  and  lay  in  wait  near  the  banks 
of  the  river,  and  when  Elder  Tanner  (  who  was  in 
company  with  Elder  Dargan)  ascended  the  bank 
from  the  ferry  landing,  Dawson,  being  a  few 
yards  from  him,  shot  him  with  a  large  horse- 
man's pistol,  and  seventeen  shot  went  into  his 
thigh,  one  of  which  was  a  large  buckshot,  that 
went  through  his  thigh,  and  lodged  between  his 
breeches  and  thigh  on  the  other  side.  Elder  Burk- 
et  was  present  when  the  doctor  (who  was  im- 
mediately sent  for)  took  part  of  the  shot  out  of 
his  thigh.  In  this  wounded  condition  Elder  Tan- 
ner was  carried  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Elisha  Wil- 
liams, in  Scotland  Neck,  where  he  lay  some  weeks, 
and  his  life  was  despaired  of;  but  through  the 
goodness  of  God  he  recovered  again.  Dawson 
seemed  somewhat  frightened,  fearing  he  would 
die,  and  sent  a  doctor  up  to  attend  him.  And  after 
Elder  Tanner  recovered,  he  never  attempted  to 

92 


seek  recompence,  but  submitted  to  it  patiently 
as  persecution  for  Christ's  sake. — Burkett's  and 
Reed's  History  of  the  Kehukee,  pp.  55-57. 

Again : 

"In  1643,  Sir  William  Berkeley,  Royal  Gover- 
nor of  Virginia,  strove  by  whippings  and  brand- 
ings, to  make  the  inhabitants  of  that  colony  con- 
form to  the  established  church,  and  thus  drove 
out  the  Baptists  and  Quakers,  who  found  a  refuge 
in  the  Albemarle  country  of  North  Carolina,  a  col- 
ony which  'was  settled,'  says  Cancroft,  'by  the 
freest  of  the  free — by  men  to  whom  the  re- 
straints of  other  colonies  were  too  severe'." — Has- 
sell's  Church  History,  p.  523. 

Again : 

"Whereas  many  schismatical  persons,  out  of 
their  averseness  to  the  orthodox  established  re- 
ligion, or  out  of  the  new-fangled  conceits  of  their 
own  heretical  inventions,  refuse  to  have  their 
children  baptized ;  be  it,  therefore,  enacted  by  the 
authority  aforesaid,  that  all  persons  that,  in  con- 
tempt of  the  divine  sacrament  of  baptism,  shall 
refuse,  when  they  may  carry  their  child  (chil- 
dren) to  a  lawful  minister  in  that  county  to  have 
them  baptized,  shall  be  emerced  two  thousand 
pounds  of  tobacco,  half  to  the  informer,  half 
to  the  public." — Foote,  page  34.  Hening,  Vol.  II., 
pages  165,  166. 

Again : 

"The  enemy,  not  contented  with  ridicule  and 
defamation,  manifested  their  abhorrence  to  the 
Baptists  in  another  way.  By  a  law  then  in  force 
in  Virginia,  all  were  under  obligation  to  go  to 

93 


church  several  times  in  the  year;  the  failure 
subjected  them  to  fine.  Little  notice  was  taken 
of  the  omission,  if  members  of  the  Established 
church ;  but  so  soon  as  the  'New  Lights'  were  ab- 
sent, they  were  presented  by  the  grand  jury, 
and  fined  according  to  law."  And  again  (on  page 
70)  :  "Soon  they  began  to  take  other  steps  to  de- 
ter the  Baptist  preachers  until  they  obtained  li- 
cense from  the  General  Court,  whose  place  of 
sitting  at  that  time  was  old  Williamsburg.  Until 
such  times  that  license  was  obtained,  they  were 
exposed  to  be  apprehended  and  imprisoned." 
Again  (on  pages  79,  80)  :  "When  persecutors 
found  religion  could  not  be  stopped  in  its  prog- 
ress by  ridicule,  defamation,  and  abusive  lan- 
guage the  resolution  was  to  take  a  different  step 
and  see  what  that  would  do ;  and  the  preachers 
in  different  places  were  apprehended  by  magis- 
terial authority,  some  of  whom  were  imprisoned 
and  some  escaped.  Before  this  step  was  taken, 
the  parson  of  the  parish  was  consulted  (in  some 
instance,  at  least,  and  his  judgment  confided  in. 
His  counsel  was  that  the  'New  Lights'  ought  to 
be  taken  up  and  imprisoned,  as  necessary  for  the 
peace  and  harmony  of  the  old  church.  As  former- 
ly the  high  priests  have  conducted  in  latter  days, 
and  seldom  there  has  been  a  persecution  but  what 
an  high  priest  has  been  at  the  head  of  it,  or  exer- 
cised influence." — William  Fristoe's  History  of 
the  Ketocton  Baptist  Association,  (beginning  at 
page  69). 

Again : 

"No  dissenter  in  Virginia  experienced,  for  a 

94 


time,  harsher  treatment  than  did  the  Baptists. 
They  were  beaten  and  imprisoned,  and  cruelty 
taxed  its  ingenuity  to  devise  new  modes  of  pun- 
ishment and  annoyance." — Dr.  Hawks'  History  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  Virginia, 
(page  121). 

This  is  but  a  small  thing  in  comparison  with 
what  they  had  to  suffer  in  Europe.  They  were 
persecuted  in  every  conceivable  way.  But  we 
must  not  linger  longer  on  this  point.  We  have 
shown  enough  already  to  show  that  they  deserve 
to  have  a  place  in  this  world  entirely  distinct, 
separate  from  all  other  people. 

IV.  What  Baptist  have  done  and  are  doing 
for  the  world  should  give  them  a  place  in  this 
world. 

1.  They  have  done  more  toward  preaching 
the  gospel  in  all  the  world  than  any  other  people. 
It  was  Baptist  who  first  conceived  the  idea  of 
modern  mission,  and  from  the  day  the  new  idea 
was  conceived,  they  have  done  their  best  to  car- 
ry out  the  plan.  Hundreds  of  converts  have  been 
made  by  our  missionaries.  They  are  still  moving 
forward  with  this  work.  They  have  their  mission- 
aries in  every  mission  field  in  the  world.  They 
have  many  more  getting  ready  for  the  work.  Al- 
most every  high  school  and  college  has 
many  of  them.  The  world  is  calling  for  them  and 
we  are  trying  to  answer  the  call  and  supply 
its  needs.  Baptist  are  doing  all  they  can  to 
obey  the  Great  Commission  of  our  Master. 

2.  They  are  doing  all  that  they  can  to  educate 
their  people.  A  few  years  ago,  they  were  called 

95 


ignorant,  fussy,  and  wet,  but  today  the  Baptists 
have  more  educated  people  than  any  other  people 
on  earth  according  to  their  numbers.  They  have 
as  well  educated  ministry  as  you  can  find,  and 
it  does  not  stop  at  this,  their  laity  is  as  well 
educated  as  you  will  find.  They  are  trying  to  get 
the  masses  educated  and  to  do  this  they  are 
supporting  many  high  schools  and  colleges  in 
many  sections  of  our  country. 

3.  They  are  doing  as  much  Sunday  school 
work  as  you  can  find  any  denomination  doing. 
They  are  stressing  it  as  never  before.  They  were 
the  originators  of  the  Sunday  school  work  and 
today  they  are  putting  more  stress  on  it  than 
any  other  people  we  have  in  North  Carolina.  They 
are  writing  more  books  than  any  other  denomi- 
nation, and  they  have  more  men  in  the  field  than 
the  others  have. 

4.  They  have  taken  the  lead  in  Orphanage 
work  in  the  south.  They  built  the  first  orphanage 
and  they  are  supporting  it  as  nobly  as  any  in 
the  world.  They  now  have  the  largest  in  the  world 
so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  learn. 

4.  They  are  baptising  more  people  than  all 
the  others  in  the  United  States  combined.  Their 
evangelists  are  the  most  aggressive  the  world 
knows  anything  about.  They  are  going  into  every 
nook  and  corner  of  the  world  with  the  glad  mes- 
sage of  life  and  salvation.  Hundreds  are  being 
won  every  day  by  our  Baptist  evangelists. 

6.  They  are  giving  the  world  more  real  reli- 
gious literature  than  any  other  people.  They  are 
writing  more  books  and  spending  more  on  litera- 

96 


ture  than  any  other  religious  denomination. 
Their  books  have  been  translated  into  almost 
every  language  on  earth.  They  have  gotten  out 
more  denominational  literature  along  doctrinal 
lines  than  any  other.  All  of  this  is  worth  while, 
and  deserves  especial  notice. 

7.  They  stood  behind  the  guns  when  the  Rev- 
olution was  on  hand,  they  were  in  the  making 
of  the  nation  when  Franklin  and  Washington 
were  in  Washington,  they  have  cooperated  in 
every  good  work  that  the  world  has  undertaken, 
and  they  stand  ready  today  to  do  all  that  they 
can  to  make  our  country  the  best  on  earth. 

Now,  this  last  word.  Have  we  not  shown  that 
the  Baptist  ought  to  exist?  Have  we  not  shown 
that  the  world  cannot  carry  on  its  work  along 
many  lines  without  them?  Have  we  not  shown 
that  they  are  and  have  been  a  glorious  asset  to 
the  world  in  every  age?  What  more  need  we  to 
say? 

THE  END. 


97 


